By comparison to benefit fraud, lost revenues from tax avoidance and tax evasion seems much greater. Using some measures of tax evasion and tax avoidance.
£70 billion of tax evasion, £25 billion tax avoidance £25 billion of unpaid tax
Tax research pdf | Tax Gap
Others claim lost tax receipts are up to £150bn a year PCS.org.uk
All that chart says is that people with assets get wealthier during a period of asset price inflation. Accurate, but not very interesting.
The charts showing the net impact of government decisions are much more interesting. IIRC, the richest 10th did worst, followed by the 2nd richest, then the poorest and the 2nd poorest. No one in the middle did that badly, although I think (from memory) 5/6/7 (with 10 being the richest) did slight better than 3/4.
It is very interesting because the goal of QE is not to inflate asset prices, it is to introduce liquidity into the economy. That all the liquidity created was locked up in assets and never touched the real economy just meant it completely and totally failed.
The best way to introduce liquidity (and also the fairest) is to send a cheque to every individual with a current NI stamp. This money would create the necessary price inflation into the economy and through the multiplier boost growth in the short term.
As those were the two alleged goals of QE the fact it wasn't done and instead wealth was effectively transferred to the already rich, demonstrates the actual goal of the political establishment.
However from Charles point of view as a very rich banker it was very very very successful
Southam, there's no attack on the fat. This is exactly the kind of difficult issue you can choose to face up to in Government or you can choose to ignore. This Government has asked for a study to be done to explore whether the idea is feasible. It is sensible, evidence led policy-making motivated by the long-term interests of the country and our public finances. I think its fair to assume from your posting that you are relaxed about super-obese people living on benefits, declining to take steps to access the job market and being a life-long drain on public finances. Personally I would prefer to encourage - and indeed invest our resources to help - them to git fit, access the job market and, in the long run, hopefully save on the health costs. Leaving the obese, addicts and alcoholics to wallow on benefits is not in our - or their - interests.
By comparison to benefit fraud, lost revenues from tax avoidance and tax evasion seems much greater. Using some measures of tax evasion and tax avoidance.
£70 billion of tax evasion, £25 billion tax avoidance £25 billion of unpaid tax
Tax research pdf | Tax Gap
Others claim lost tax receipts are up to £150bn a year PCS.org.uk
"Tax research pdf | Tax Gap"
I won't comment on the numbers, but that organisation is funded by unions.
Interesting that in Miliband's tribute to recently deceased major donor and Labour's "Chair of Nations and Regions" (wtftmb) Andrew Rosenfeld, he omitted to mention that he had lived as a tax exile in Switzerland for five years.
Time I fancy in relation to this thread for OGH to arrange a PB.com poll to gauge the collective wisdom of PBers as regards our expectaion of the GE Result in terms of seats for each of the major parties.
Yes, very timely indeed, PfP.
This GE must be one of the most difficult to predict that you and I can recall. A straw poll of the PB cognoscenti would be instructive, and fun.
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
Something you're concluding far too much from based on 40 years of a single measure.
UK Employment Rate is ALWAYS roughly 73.5% on average.
This is at least since the 1950s for GDP and 1960s for Employment.
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
I'm not sure you're right
Chart 2 shows the addition of 1.5m net jobs, despite significant reduction in public sector employment: the result of the government creating an economic environment where private companies are willing to invest. That's got to be deemed a success.
Chart 6 shows the employment rate: you are right that it has moved in a fairly tight range - 55 to 60- over the last 40 years. But there has been a very strong recovery in the last 5 years: from 58 to 59.5%. It may look like a small shift, but it's absolutely a strong trend and makes a huge difference for the individuals who it affects
@CarlottaVance How much tax has HMRC collected from information contained in the stolen files? Does this compare favourably as a percentage with other countries? and if not, why not?
Do your own research! Do you know?
Or are you arguing that the government should intervene in the operation of HMRC?
LOL, scared they might come for you if they did
I hope you declare all those cash in hand minicab jobs to Prestwick airport Malky.
Begin to wonder if you two spoofs are given material by the same cretin, you both are useless and unable to come up with anything witty or original. If I go to Prestwick it is in one of my BMW's , preferably the gas guzzling SUV. Almost makes me wish I lived in England so I could wave to you in your cardboard box as I wafted past.
PS , if you had been speaking about yourself you would have missed out "minicab" from your pathetic jibe.
Rich people do not just need their bins emptied; their quality of life is also dependent on transport infrastructure, independent policing and justice systems, ensuring that all other members of their society having proper access to health and education. So come on: just pay your tax - it really is not too much to ask.
Even on their current "avoiding" number the top 1% pay for about a third of the country. The continued envy and cried to pay more is a little unedifying.
If I was a billionaire, even though I am British and proud of it, I wouldn't live in the UK, its so conspicuously despises the successful and especially the self made rich. It wants to ever take more money from them but is dismissive of their philanthropy and other good works. A man can start from nothing, building up a successful multi-billion pound business, give millions of pounds to charity, employ thousands of British workers, and yet the establishment looks at him with a sneer and a look of disgust contorting their collective face.
Watch HSBC shift their HQ to another tax regime, the Left cry Hurrah, and everyone else picks up the resulting shortfall in tax revenue. Or we make some more cuts.
Mr. CD13, whilst not old, I'm also not a very young fellow, so it may just be that Miliband's juvenile ranting is clear to people of all ages. On the other hand, I'm also more interested in politics (and history) than most people, so perhaps I'm not the best yardstick. [Indeed, the pb congregation is not exactly representative of the nation at large, I suspect].
Mr. G, I am a skinny one (apparently a few months ago I weighed the same as the average Eritrean, since when I have lost weight). It's the self-inflicted nature, coupled with guaranteed taxpayer-funded healthcare which is the issue. A man has the right to eat cake all day long, but it's morally suspect to do so then demand his neighbours fund his liposuction or other operations/medical procedures. If we didn't have taxpayer-funded healthcare and substantial benefits in this country it wouldn't be an issue.
The taxpayer ought not be a mug to be milked for money by the feckless, the lazy, and those who willingly inflict upon themselves ailments borne of vice and excess. If we punish the hard-working and fling money, without a thought, at the bone idle or those committing self-harm [which will then require the taxpayer-funded hospitals to mend] then there's only one sort of behaviour we'll be encouraging.
They are paying slightly more, their wealth has increased exponentially. Look at how they have benefited from QE.
Hows to make the super rich part with a little of their cash to make life better for the rest of us is a conundrum that is proving very difficult to solve.
Try to tax them and the money simply flees. It really is a difficult one.
I think the TV show secret millionaire is quite interesting. Asking wealthy people just to hand over vast amounts to the state to do whatever it wants with gets you nowhere.
But if you give wealthy people a stake in the enterprise they are supporting, they become much more generous.
Recognition (maybe even honours??) for tax paid might be an idea.
The answer is actually relatively simple: tax residential housing. The mansion tax is a bad idea, because it includes complex thresholds. But a simple, annual, property tax on all residential housing would be fair, progressive (in the technical sense) and hard to avoid.
I think we can both agree that QE would not happen without government support and that on balance it was necessary. Where we seem to disagree is on whether this Tory-led government could do more than it has to ensure that a far larger part of the additional wealth that has been handed on a plate to the super-rich is returned in the form of taxes.
With respect SO, we can't even agree to disagree! I think the Government could be doing more. It always can. But what exactly are you suggesting? It's very hard to target taxes at the "winners", impossible to distinguish between "producers" and "predators" as Miliband naively tried to do. This Government simplified CGT to remove reliefs that meant many of those benefiting from inflated asset prices were paying very little tax. It increased stamp duty and cracked down on the use of corporate vehicles to mitigate stamp duty. It has set the upper rate of income tax at a level higher than Labour used for 98% of its time in power, while lifting millions out of the tax net. I am very open to suggestions as to what more government can do, but I have heard nothing sensible from Labour on this. And its interventions so far indicate it has little idea how markets operate, how incentives work or how much of the burden for funding its spending aspirations is borne by the "few" it so cheerily criticises.
Do not confuse me with someone who has any great enthusiasm for the Labour party under Ed Miliband or as a defender of the last Labour government, which I voted against at the last GE. But lifting people out of the tax net is no great cause for celebration if the overall affect of all your policies is to leave them worse off. Furthermore, I believe that there is plenty more the government could be doing to claw back the wealth handed to the super-rich on a plate over the last few years. The problem seems to be that the Tories start from an assumption that you share: not that much can be done because the rich will just go elsewhere. I would like to see that assumption challenged.
'If only the Tories were so interested in really helping people retain employment or even get employment.'
Cut the crap Malcolm , you would be all over this like a rash if it was a Tory or Labour council prioritizing booze & food over a teaching job. You just look idiotic.
Why council taxpayers have to pay for booze & food for part time Councillors is a separate issue ,but stuffing their faces with free food & booze is clearly the priority in this council.
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
I'm not sure you're right
Chart 2 shows the addition of 1.5m net jobs, despite significant reduction in public sector employment: the result of the government creating an economic environment where private companies are willing to invest. That's got to be deemed a success.
Chart 6 shows the employment rate: you are right that it has moved in a fairly tight range - 55 to 60- over the last 40 years. But there has been a very strong recovery in the last 5 years: from 58 to 59.5%. It may look like a small shift, but it's absolutely a strong trend and makes a huge difference for the individuals who it affects
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
I'm not sure you're right
Chart 2 shows the addition of 1.5m net jobs, despite significant reduction in public sector employment: the result of the government creating an economic environment where private companies are willing to invest. That's got to be deemed a success.
Chart 6 shows the employment rate: you are right that it has moved in a fairly tight range - 55 to 60- over the last 40 years. But there has been a very strong recovery in the last 5 years: from 58 to 59.5%. It may look like a small shift, but it's absolutely a strong trend and makes a huge difference for the individuals who it affects
In 2010, the Conservatives were the opposition, so swing-back worked against them.
This time they are the government, so it should work for them.
And they have SNP/Greens on their side.
All they've got to do is convince enough Kippers...
It always used to be said that the Lib Dems do better when it comes to election campaigns as they get the same attention as the other parties. But that was when they were in opposition......
At whose expense though did they do better? Labour? Tory? Government? Opposition? It's one reason I'm not convinced the TV debates made a difference in 2010. The Lib Dems would have got the same broadcast exposure as the other parties and Clegg could probably have held up the Tory onslaught.
Rich people do not just need their bins emptied; their quality of life is also dependent on transport infrastructure, independent policing and justice systems, ensuring that all other members of their society having proper access to health and education. So come on: just pay your tax - it really is not too much to ask.
Even on their current "avoiding" number the top 1% pay for about a third of the country. The continued envy and cried to pay more is a little unedifying.
If I was a billionaire, even though I am British and proud of it, I wouldn't live in the UK, its so conspicuously despises the successful and especially the self made rich. It wants to ever take more money from them but is dismissive of their philanthropy and other good works. A man can start from nothing, building up a successful multi-billion pound business, give millions of pounds to charity, employ thousands of British workers, and yet the establishment looks at him with a sneer and a look of disgust contorting their collective face.
Watch HSBC shift their HQ to another tax regime, the Left cry Hurrah, and everyone else picks up the resulting shortfall in tax revenue. Or we make some more cuts.
Southam, there's no attack on the fat. This is exactly the kind of difficult issue you can choose to face up to in Government or you can choose to ignore. This Government has asked for a study to be done to explore whether the idea is feasible. It is sensible, evidence led policy-making motivated by the long-term interests of the country and our public finances. I think its fair to assume from your posting that you are relaxed about super-obese people living on benefits, declining to take steps to access the job market and being a life-long drain on public finances. Personally I would prefer to encourage - and indeed invest our resources to help - them to git fit, access the job market and, in the long run, hopefully save on the health costs. Leaving the obese, addicts and alcoholics to wallow on benefits is not in our - or their - interests.
Three months before an election with the Tories in danger of losing a great deal of support to the right they suddenly decide that the feral fat are a problem that needs tackling. Please forgive my cynicism. If the Tories really thought this was an issue they would have done something about it before now.
They are paying slightly more, their wealth has increased exponentially. Look at how they have benefited from QE.
Hows to make the super rich part with a little of their cash to make life better for the rest of us is a conundrum that is proving very difficult to solve.
Try to tax them and the money simply flees. It really is a difficult one.
I think the TV show secret millionaire is quite interesting. Asking wealthy people just to hand over vast amounts to the state to do whatever it wants with gets you nowhere.
But if you give wealthy people a stake in the enterprise they are supporting, they become much more generous.
Recognition (maybe even honours??) for tax paid might be an idea.
The answer is actually relatively simple: tax residential housing. The mansion tax is a bad idea, because it includes complex thresholds. But a simple, annual, property tax on all residential housing would be fair, progressive (in the technical sense) and hard to avoid.
Won't the super rich place their property into the hands of overseas trusts? How does one pursue a brass plate in Panama for the tax?
I'm assuming landlords will simply pass the charge onto tenants too. Correct?
@CarlottaVance How much tax has HMRC collected from information contained in the stolen files? Does this compare favourably as a percentage with other countries? and if not, why not?
HMRC has seen huge falls in its staffing and funding. It's not a huge surprise that the money coming in as a result of the treaties and other initiatives is so paltry in relative terms.
Do you have any data to back that up?
My impression is that they have been much more aggressive and much more successful in tax recovery - just look, for instance, at the Ingenious Media cases.
By contrast, their forecasts ability is for the birds: they massively over-estimated the recovery from the Luxembourg agreement with the Swiss, for instance. But offsetting that, they massively under-estimated the tax recovery from the Corporate Envelope reforms on UK property.
'If only the Tories were so interested in really helping people retain employment or even get employment.'
Cut the crap Malcolm , you would be all over this like a rash if it was a Tory or Labour council prioritizing booze & food over a teaching job. You just look idiotic.
Why council taxpayers have to pay for booze & food for part time Councillors is a separate issue ,but stuffing their faces with free food & booze is clearly the priority in this council.
I am sure you are speaking from a position of knowledge, LOL. If you had half considered it you would have realised it is not a personal fund for the councillors to get free booze. It is for use on official functions , unlike the vast amount of subsidised food, booze , champagne and other goodies troughed in Westminster as personal consumption. Next you will be telling me there is a Tory surge and they are actually nice people.
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
I'm not sure you're right
Chart 2 shows the addition of 1.5m net jobs, despite significant reduction in public sector employment: the result of the government creating an economic environment where private companies are willing to invest. That's got to be deemed a success.
Chart 6 shows the employment rate: you are right that it has moved in a fairly tight range - 55 to 60- over the last 40 years. But there has been a very strong recovery in the last 5 years: from 58 to 59.5%. It may look like a small shift, but it's absolutely a strong trend and makes a huge difference for the individuals who it affects
All that chart says is that people with assets get wealthier during a period of asset price inflation. Accurate, but not very interesting.
The charts showing the net impact of government decisions are much more interesting. IIRC, the richest 10th did worst, followed by the 2nd richest, then the poorest and the 2nd poorest. No one in the middle did that badly, although I think (from memory) 5/6/7 (with 10 being the richest) did slight better than 3/4.
It is very interesting because the goal of QE is not to inflate asset prices, it is to introduce liquidity into the economy. That all the liquidity created was locked up in assets and never touched the real economy just meant it completely and totally failed.
The best way to introduce liquidity (and also the fairest) is to send a cheque to every individual with a current NI stamp. This money would create the necessary price inflation into the economy and through the multiplier boost growth in the short term.
As those were the two alleged goals of QE the fact it wasn't done and instead wealth was effectively transferred to the already rich, demonstrates the actual goal of the political establishment.
There are some on the left like Will Hutton who remain furious with Mervyn King for the way he overrode Darling's desire for some of it to be used to purchase corporate bonds, instead insisting it be used solely for purchasing government bonds.
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
I'm not sure you're right
Chart 2 shows the addition of 1.5m net jobs, despite significant reduction in public sector employment: the result of the government creating an economic environment where private companies are willing to invest. That's got to be deemed a success.
Chart 6 shows the employment rate: you are right that it has moved in a fairly tight range - 55 to 60- over the last 40 years. But there has been a very strong recovery in the last 5 years: from 58 to 59.5%. It may look like a small shift, but it's absolutely a strong trend and makes a huge difference for the individuals who it affects
So 55-60 is very tight but 58 to 59.5 is huge , Tory economics of the first order.
You have haggis for brains.
He said 55-60 over 40 years is fairly tight, and that 1.5% was a very strong recovery over 5 years.
Surely even a McDuffer like you can understand that he's right?
So says the man who does not know what his own name is. You clown it is because it is a short period after a huge recession , any thicko would expect a sharp rise , whereas, just for your addled brain, it will be much gentler over the long 40 year period which will smooth out the bumps.
@Flockers - How much extra money has the government recouped from all its initiatives around tax avoidance? It has significantly cut funding for HMRC which means that in practice it is far harder for money to be located and then collected. When will the government start recouping the money that has been supplied to the super rich via QE?
Largely, it cant.
Someone had the bright idea of joining the incipient European superstate, with a free movement of capital, goods and labour. The first of these is the important one here. The structure of the EU not only permits, but actively encourages businesses to move their offices to low tax counties, and to arrange their affairs within the EU in the most tax efficient way possible. When Boots moved its head office to Switzerland in 2007, under a Labour government, the government was warned it would cost the UK £100bn in tax revenue, and yet no one complained or acted to prevent it, why not, because they couldn't, it was legal under EU law.
QE has nothing to do with the EU. In fact, we were able to do it because we are not a part of the single currency. It has made the very wealthiest - the people who bankroll the Conservative party - richer than they have ever been before.
I believe it was the Conservative party that signed up to Maastricht ad the creation of the single market.
Yes, yes, I mean you have no real chance of getting it back, because the structure of the EU is designed to help people move money away from high tax areas to low tax areas, so any attempt to get that money back from "the rich" is going to fail.
Switzerland is not in the EU. We are also a member of the EU and so have the capacity to do something about it, if we chose to.
Yes, we have been notable for our success in changing things related to the four fundamental pillars of the EU. In any case Luxembourg is in the EU and has the same characteristics, better still those tax haven and secrecy regulations were introduced by the current president of the EU in his former position as President of Luxembourg, good luck with getting that changed.
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
Something you're concluding far too much from based on 40 years of a single measure.
If the primary measures of an economy - Employment Rate and Growth rate - do not change AT ALL no matter what type or philosophy of government, the idea that government can do anything which improve them has no merit.
UK GDP Growth is ALWAYS roughly 2.5% on average. UK Employment Rate is ALWAYS roughly 73.5% on average.
This is at least since the 1950s for GDP and 1960s for Employment.
Nothing any government has done has changed these trends, the UK Economy always returns to this position from any short term movement.
It is the fundamental flaw of both the mainstream political establishment in the UK (and other countries) that they believe that they can change these fundamental measures.
Once you understand and accept this, you realise that government can never, ever make things better for the country as a whole.
You're ignoring the potential of supply side reforms that can change the fundamental potential. For instance, I think in the 70s the underlying growth potential was around 2% p.a. and Thatcher's reforms probably lifted it to 2.5%. Over a generation that makes a huge difference.
They take a lot longer to take effect though, and are less noticeable in the headline figures
Southam, I know you are no fan of the last Labour Government or of Ed, and you've always been a thoughtful commentator, but on this you are defaulting to a Labour stereotype. In this thread I have given you plenty of evidence of steps this Government have taken - from introducing new taxes to cracking down on avoidance - to ensure the wealthy pay their share. I am also open to other ideas. I have also provided you with evidence that HMRC is raising meaningful amounts from its interventions, which you seemed to doubt.
I do not start from an assumption that there is not much that can be done because the rich will move elsewhere; I start from a position of certain knowledge supported by decades of evidence that companies and wealthy individuals migrate to find favourable tax environments, that this places a limitation on what any government can do before their interventions become self defeating, and that one of the consequences of globalisation is that migration is becoming easier, while co-ordinated international efforts to prevent profit shifting are complex. All this advocates caution and a sophisticated approach, but it certainly does not mean that the rich should not be taxed more, or loopholes not closed. You are lazily tarring me and this Government with a stereotype that is refuted by the facts.
From Labour I see very little beyond naive sloganising. A leader opposed to avoidance but unable to define it, who thinks businesses divide neatly into producers and predators, who doesn't seem to understand it is perfectly legitimate for a global business with UK interests to be based in Switzerland, or that that business could still contribute enormously to the UK economy such that its foreign-born and domiciled boss should have a voice. Who smears a philanthropist without any evidence his affairs are dodgy, and then denies it. Who are untroubled by evidence that their 50% tax rate contributed little to the economy. And who have opposed virtually every measure to reduced public expenditure, predicted disaster at every turn, and who have been comprehensively proved wrong by the economic data. This has been the most amateurish opposition since at least 1997-2001, and probably many decades before then.
@TheWatcher " How does one pursue a brass plate in Panama for the tax?" Perhaps David C. knows? His father was one of the first to set up a tax avoidance company after Maggie changed the law?
@Charles You mean that the heads of banks should carry the can instead of shrugging their shoulders and saying... "Not me, it was someone else's fault"?
I think they should be sacked - and I think most were.
I'm not sure about making them criminally liable - it's hard enough to recruit high quality board directors for banks as it is.
The issue, as always, with organisations as complex as banks, is proving criminality. That said, I think the regulator should have been much more aggressive in withdrawing individual licences.
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
Something you're concluding far too much from based on 40 years of a single measure.
If the primary measures of an economy - Employment Rate and Growth rate - do not change AT ALL no matter what type or philosophy of government, the idea that government can do anything which improve them has no merit.
UK GDP Growth is ALWAYS roughly 2.5% on average. UK Employment Rate is ALWAYS roughly 73.5% on average.
This is at least since the 1950s for GDP and 1960s for Employment.
Nothing any government has done has changed these trends, the UK Economy always returns to this position from any short term movement.
It is the fundamental flaw of both the mainstream political establishment in the UK (and other countries) that they believe that they can change these fundamental measures.
Once you understand and accept this, you realise that government can never, ever make things better for the country as a whole.
You're ignoring the potential of supply side reforms that can change the fundamental potential. For instance, I think in the 70s the underlying growth potential was around 2% p.a. and Thatcher's reforms probably lifted it to 2.5%. Over a generation that makes a huge difference.
They take a lot longer to take effect though, and are less noticeable in the headline figures
Garbage , it was Scotland's oil and sale of the nations assets that raised it in that period, nothing whatsoever to do with Thatcher and her scorched earth economics.
PS : we are still paying for her stupidity given the lack of decent social housing , public utilities privatised and chiselling the public , etc.
So says the man who does not know what his own name is. You clown it is because it is a short period after a huge recession , any thicko would expect a sharp rise , whereas, just for your addled brain, it will be much gentler over the long 40 year period which will smooth out the bumps.
Very pleased that my simple and consistent name continues to confuse your tiny brain.
What you just said is very similar to what Charles said in the first place.
Rich people do not just need their bins emptied; their quality of life is also dependent on transport infrastructure, independent policing and justice systems, ensuring that all other members of their society having proper access to health and education. So come on: just pay your tax - it really is not too much to ask.
Even on their current "avoiding" number the top 1% pay for about a third of the country. The continued envy and cried to pay more is a little unedifying.
If I was a billionaire, even though I am British and proud of it, I wouldn't live in the UK, its so conspicuously despises the successful and especially the self made rich. It wants to ever take more money from them but is dismissive of their philanthropy and other good works. A man can start from nothing, building up a successful multi-billion pound business, give millions of pounds to charity, employ thousands of British workers, and yet the establishment looks at him with a sneer and a look of disgust contorting their collective face.
Watch HSBC shift their HQ to another tax regime, the Left cry Hurrah, and everyone else picks up the resulting shortfall in tax revenue. Or we make some more cuts.
Do they pay any tax,
When Boots left (with the support of Labour) it cost us around £100m per year in tax. According their latest report and accounts HSBC UK paid around £950m in tax last year. Think the treasury might notice almost a billion pounds going abroad. Personally I would be nervous about suggestion a large bank didn't pay any tax, but maybe that is just me.
I like the timing of the attack on the feral fat that we are seeing this weekend from the Tories. After a week defending their poor, misunderstood, put-upon hedge fund backers it must be good to be back on more solid ground. Obese spongers to be punished, for it is they who have forced this country into penury.
Do you believe, in principle, that people should take responsibility for their own actions?
In principle, yes I do. But I also believe that their actions are not independent of a variety of factors that lie beyond their control and that demonisation and punishment are not the most effective ways to help them - though I do understand that politically it plays well.
Demonisation rarely helps.
But questions like free treatment for the obese (where there is no hormonal component) or free A&E support for those who undertake high risk sports are fair questions to ask.
@Charles Yes, prosecuting the rich is always difficult, far better to hound those at the bottom that have limited access to lawyers. In fact, perhaps we could cut legal aid and restrict trial by jury for them to make prosecution even easier?
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
Something you're concluding far too much from based on 40 years of a single measure.
If the primary measures of an economy - Employment Rate and Growth rate - do not change AT ALL no matter what type or philosophy of government, the idea that government can do anything which improve them has no merit.
UK GDP Growth is ALWAYS roughly 2.5% on average. UK Employment Rate is ALWAYS roughly 73.5% on average.
This is at least since the 1950s for GDP and 1960s for Employment.
Nothing any government has done has changed these trends, the UK Economy always returns to this position from any short term movement.
It is the fundamental flaw of both the mainstream political establishment in the UK (and other countries) that they believe that they can change these fundamental measures.
Once you understand and accept this, you realise that government can never, ever make things better for the country as a whole.
You're ignoring the potential of supply side reforms that can change the fundamental potential. For instance, I think in the 70s the underlying growth potential was around 2% p.a. and Thatcher's reforms probably lifted it to 2.5%. Over a generation that makes a huge difference.
They take a lot longer to take effect though, and are less noticeable in the headline figures
No, I'm accounting for the Supply Side argument, it cannot be demonstrated and I linked the stats higher up. There's no evidence of the impact of loosening the Supply Side, which let's be honest predominantly meant loosening Labour supply.
All Supply Side economics did was Nationalise costs previously borne by business such as Pension costs. No impact on growth rate, no impact on employment rate.
So says the man who does not know what his own name is. You clown it is because it is a short period after a huge recession , any thicko would expect a sharp rise , whereas, just for your addled brain, it will be much gentler over the long 40 year period which will smooth out the bumps.
Very pleased that my simple and consistent name continues to confuse your tiny brain.
What you just said is very similar to what Charles said in the first place.
Yet you were unable to grasp my reply, how very fitting.
PS: It si not only your name that is simple and consistent.
All that chart says is that people with assets get wealthier during a period of asset price inflation. Accurate, but not very interesting.
The charts showing the net impact of government decisions are much more interesting. IIRC, the richest 10th did worst, followed by the 2nd richest, then the poorest and the 2nd poorest. No one in the middle did that badly, although I think (from memory) 5/6/7 (with 10 being the richest) did slight better than 3/4.
It is very interesting because the goal of QE is not to inflate asset prices, it is to introduce liquidity into the economy. That all the liquidity created was locked up in assets and never touched the real economy just meant it completely and totally failed.
The best way to introduce liquidity (and also the fairest) is to send a cheque to every individual with a current NI stamp. This money would create the necessary price inflation into the economy and through the multiplier boost growth in the short term.
As those were the two alleged goals of QE the fact it wasn't done and instead wealth was effectively transferred to the already rich, demonstrates the actual goal of the political establishment.
Well QE certainty helped provide liquidity to the banking sector, which was the primary purpose. You're right, though, that not enough of that filtered through to the real economy.
But there is a lot of merit to "helicopter money" as well - it was pretty successful when George W Bush implemented it in the US
' The problem seems to be that the Tories start from an assumption that you share: not that much can be done because the rich will just go elsewhere. I would like to see that assumption challenged.'
Are you not aware of what's been happening in France for the past three years?
You obviously were not around in the 70's when we had the mass exodus of both the wealthy & aspirational due to the punitive tax rates.
Rich people do not just need their bins emptied; their quality of life is also dependent on transport infrastructure, independent policing and justice systems, ensuring that all other members of their society having proper access to health and education. So come on: just pay your tax - it really is not too much to ask.
Even on their current "avoiding" number the top 1% pay for about a third of the country. The continued envy and cried to pay more is a little unedifying.
If I was a billionaire, even though I am British and proud of it, I wouldn't live in the UK, its so conspicuously despises the successful and especially the self made rich. It wants to ever take more money from them but is dismissive of their philanthropy and other good works. A man can start from nothing, building up a successful multi-billion pound business, give millions of pounds to charity, employ thousands of British workers, and yet the establishment looks at him with a sneer and a look of disgust contorting their collective face.
Watch HSBC shift their HQ to another tax regime, the Left cry Hurrah, and everyone else picks up the resulting shortfall in tax revenue. Or we make some more cuts.
Do they pay any tax,
When Boots left (with the support of Labour) it cost us around £100m per year in tax. According their latest report and accounts HSBC UK paid around £950m in tax last year. Think the treasury might notice almost a billion pounds going abroad. Personally I would be nervous about suggestion a large bank didn't pay any tax, but maybe that is just me.
You think the UK is so bad you cannot ask a question, certainly confirms how crappy this country is nowadays that people are scared a question will be construed as a suggestion and that you will be dragged away by men in leathercoats if you suggest something.. Given they are happy with the huge numbers mentioned up thread , ie at least 100B between avoidance/evasion it i shard to see how less than £1B would be an issue. They can find money any time they wish for their pet projects and chums, it is doing anything to help the public they find difficult.
Garbage , it was Scotland's oil and sale of the nations assets that raised it in that period, nothing whatsoever to do with Thatcher and her scorched earth economics.
PS : we are still paying for her stupidity given the lack of decent social housing , public utilities privatised and chiselling the public , etc.
Not entirely. I mean it's true that the money was unfairly used to subsidise London but in terms of growth, North Sea Oil was too small a factor for the UK to make a significant impact to its long term 2.5% growth rate.
Norway, on the other hand had a very consistent period of 4% growth between 1975 and 2002 before recalibrating on the long term developed western economy trend of 2.5%.
Scotland would have similarly benefited, reaching Norwegian levels of wealth had it been Independent.
So says the man who does not know what his own name is. You clown it is because it is a short period after a huge recession , any thicko would expect a sharp rise , whereas, just for your addled brain, it will be much gentler over the long 40 year period which will smooth out the bumps.
Very pleased that my simple and consistent name continues to confuse your tiny brain.
What you just said is very similar to what Charles said in the first place.
Yet you were unable to grasp my reply, how very fitting.
You misquoted Charles - he didn't call 1.5% huge, or 5% very tight. Then you said what he said with a different spin on it, by using 'sharp' and 'gentle' in place of 'very strong' and 'fairly tight'.
Very very obvious that it's going to be approximately level on the main VI question, but the final supplementary is going to be massively weighted towards people thinking Cam will still be PM after May.
All that chart says is that people with assets get wealthier during a period of asset price inflation. Accurate, but not very interesting.
The charts showing the net impact of government decisions are much more interesting. IIRC, the richest 10th did worst, followed by the 2nd richest, then the poorest and the 2nd poorest. No one in the middle did that badly, although I think (from memory) 5/6/7 (with 10 being the richest) did slight better than 3/4.
It is very interesting because the goal of QE is not to inflate asset prices, it is to introduce liquidity into the economy. That all the liquidity created was locked up in assets and never touched the real economy just meant it completely and totally failed.
The best way to introduce liquidity (and also the fairest) is to send a cheque to every individual with a current NI stamp. This money would create the necessary price inflation into the economy and through the multiplier boost growth in the short term.
As those were the two alleged goals of QE the fact it wasn't done and instead wealth was effectively transferred to the already rich, demonstrates the actual goal of the political establishment.
However from Charles point of view as a very rich banker it was very very very successful
You could let me answer for myself!
It wasn't particularly helpful for me. Yes my flat has gone up substantially in value. But the house I aspire to move to has gone up by more in absolute terms - which makes it unlikely I will ever be able to afford it.
So the monetary value of my assets has gone up, but the life options have narrowed. I wouldn't count that successful!
(As an aside, I am well off, certainly, because I have worked hard all my life. But not "very rich" by any standards! The value of an asset that does not belong to me, and cannot be sold is nil as far as my personal wealth is concerned!...)
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
Something you're concluding far too much from based on 40 years of a single measure.
UK Employment Rate is ALWAYS roughly 73.5% on average.
This is at least since the 1950s for GDP and 1960s for Employment.
Garbage , it was Scotland's oil and sale of the nations assets that raised it in that period, nothing whatsoever to do with Thatcher and her scorched earth economics.
PS : we are still paying for her stupidity given the lack of decent social housing , public utilities privatised and chiselling the public , etc.
Not entirely. I mean it's true that the money was unfairly used to subsidise London but in terms of growth, North Sea Oil was too small a factor for the UK to make a significant impact to its long term 2.5% growth rate.
Norway, on the other hand had a very consistent period of 4% growth between 1975 and 2002 before recalibrating on the long term developed western economy trend of 2.5%.
Scotland would have similarly benefited, reaching Norwegian levels of wealth had it been Independent.
Partly true but I still think a big factor was the oil and sale of public assets, it was certainly not down to thatcher's brilliance. The other factor was allowing casino banking which allowed all the dodgy money to flow to London.
They most certainly enriched London at the expense of beggaring Scotland.
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
I'm not sure you're right
Chart 2 shows the addition of 1.5m net jobs, despite significant reduction in public sector employment: the result of the government creating an economic environment where private companies are willing to invest. That's got to be deemed a success.
Chart 6 shows the employment rate: you are right that it has moved in a fairly tight range - 55 to 60- over the last 40 years. But there has been a very strong recovery in the last 5 years: from 58 to 59.5%. It may look like a small shift, but it's absolutely a strong trend and makes a huge difference for the individuals who it affects
Three months before an election with the Tories in danger of losing a great deal of support to the right they suddenly decide that the feral fat are a problem that needs tackling. Please forgive my cynicism. If the Tories really thought this was an issue they would have done something about it before now.
That makes no sense. All parties of government have to renew and refresh their policies ahead of the next election. The Conservatives are committed to very significant cuts, as are Labour. Of course they have to indicate where some of those cuts would fall - if they didn't you would rightly criticise them. The fact that they were not considered necessary, or politically achievable, in the first term does not mean they are not appropriate now. As I have said, the policy needs to be examined. It may not make sense, for many reasons. But if we are serious about balancing the budget we have to now look at new things to cut, as well as new revenue streams. The electorate then have to decide whether they are willing to accept - or inflict on others - the consequences. Labour are trying to duck the debate by pretending they are a fiscally responsible party committed to cuts, without outlining what they are. As we have seen over the last 24 hours, some posters on where are now comforting themselves with fantasy numbers about the extent of tax avoidance in the UK and think crusader Ed will be uniquely able to extract these amounts without adverse consequences for the country.
The better point to make is that the Conservatives cannot truly be serious about cuts while they continue to preserve the benefits available to elderly, many of which are unjustifiable. But I don't see Labour having the courage to tackle that either.
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
I'm not sure you're right
Chart 2 shows the addition of 1.5m net jobs, despite significant reduction in public sector employment: the result of the government creating an economic environment where private companies are willing to invest. That's got to be deemed a success.
Chart 6 shows the employment rate: you are right that it has moved in a fairly tight range - 55 to 60- over the last 40 years. But there has been a very strong recovery in the last 5 years: from 58 to 59.5%. It may look like a small shift, but it's absolutely a strong trend and makes a huge difference for the individuals who it affects
Rich people do not just need their bins emptied; their quality of life is also dependent on transport infrastructure, independent policing and justice systems, ensuring that all other members of their society having proper access to health and education. So come on: just pay your tax - it really is not too much to ask.
Even on their current "avoiding" number the top 1% pay for about a third of the country. The continued envy and cried to pay more is a little unedifying.
If I was a billionaire, even though I am British and proud of it, I wouldn't live in the UK, its so conspicuously despises the successful and especially the self made rich. It wants to ever take more money from them but is dismissive of their philanthropy and other good works. A man can start from nothing, building up a successful multi-billion pound business, give millions of pounds to charity, employ thousands of British workers, and yet the establishment looks at him with a sneer and a look of disgust contorting their collective face.
Watch HSBC shift their HQ to another tax regime, the Left cry Hurrah, and everyone else picks up the resulting shortfall in tax revenue. Or we make some more cuts.
Do they pay any tax, (HSBC)
10,000 office based HQ staff worth at least £300m in taxes, probably £500m. On top of that comes corporation taxes et etc.
All that chart says is that people with assets get wealthier during a period of asset price inflation. Accurate, but not very interesting.
The charts showing the net impact of government decisions are much more interesting. IIRC, the richest 10th did worst, followed by the 2nd richest, then the poorest and the 2nd poorest. No one in the middle did that badly, although I think (from memory) 5/6/7 (with 10 being the richest) did slight better than 3/4.
It is very interesting because the goal of QE is not to inflate asset prices, it is to introduce liquidity into the economy. That all the liquidity created was locked up in assets and never touched the real economy just meant it completely and totally failed.
The best way to introduce liquidity (and also the fairest) is to send a cheque to every individual with a current NI stamp. This money would create the necessary price inflation into the economy and through the multiplier boost growth in the short term.
As those were the two alleged goals of QE the fact it wasn't done and instead wealth was effectively transferred to the already rich, demonstrates the actual goal of the political establishment.
Well QE certainty helped provide liquidity to the banking sector, which was the primary purpose. You're right, though, that not enough of that filtered through to the real economy.
But there is a lot of merit to "helicopter money" as well - it was pretty successful when George W Bush implemented it in the US
I guess it depends on your view of Bush or not whether you think the Tax Refund was a legitimate piece of macro-economic policy or just a bribe. I still tend towards the latter.
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
I'm not sure you're right
Chart 2 shows the addition of 1.5m net jobs, despite significant reduction in public sector employment: the result of the government creating an economic environment where private companies are willing to invest. That's got to be deemed a success.
Chart 6 shows the employment rate: you are right that it has moved in a fairly tight range - 55 to 60- over the last 40 years. But there has been a very strong recovery in the last 5 years: from 58 to 59.5%. It may look like a small shift, but it's absolutely a strong trend and makes a huge difference for the individuals who it affects
They are paying slightly more, their wealth has increased exponentially. Look at how they have benefited from QE.
Hows to make the super rich part with a little of their cash to make life better for the rest of us is a conundrum that is proving very difficult to solve.
Try to tax them and the money simply flees. It really is a difficult one.
I think the TV show secret millionaire is quite interesting. Asking wealthy people just to hand over vast amounts to the state to do whatever it wants with gets you nowhere.
But if you give wealthy people a stake in the enterprise they are supporting, they become much more generous.
Recognition (maybe even honours??) for tax paid might be an idea.
The answer is actually relatively simple: tax residential housing. The mansion tax is a bad idea, because it includes complex thresholds. But a simple, annual, property tax on all residential housing would be fair, progressive (in the technical sense) and hard to avoid.
Won't the super rich place their property into the hands of overseas trusts? How does one pursue a brass plate in Panama for the tax?
I'm assuming landlords will simply pass the charge onto tenants too. Correct?
Overseas trusts - there is already the 15% annual charge for corporate envelopes. In addition, with a physical asset in the UK, you can get a court order to seize and sell for non-payment.
Landlords: I'm sure they will try to. In the back of my mind, I'm thinking about a 1% annual rate, so I'm not sure that they would be able to make a 25% increase in total rental costs stick (thinking London yields of 4%) .
A question for the Tories. How many other banks other than the (only) one we have information on, have offered the same "service" for their clients? A rough estimate will do
When Boots left (with the support of Labour) it cost us around £100m per year in tax. According their latest report and accounts HSBC UK paid around £950m in tax last year. Think the treasury might notice almost a billion pounds going abroad. Personally I would be nervous about suggestion a large bank didn't pay any tax, but maybe that is just me.
Some banks have been able to offset historic losses against profits to reduce their corporation tax bill in recent years but of course they still pay employment taxes (e.g. employers NICs) and the numerous head office jobs provide further tax revenue (PAYE and NICs) as well as ancillary economic benefits. We need better capitalised, more secure, more ethical banks contributing to the UK economy. Again this Government, working with international partners, have made good progress in this respect. But there's still a huge amount to do.
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
Something you're concluding far too much from based on 40 years of a single measure.
UK Employment Rate is ALWAYS roughly 73.5% on average.
This is at least since the 1950s for GDP and 1960s for Employment.
BTW, my point about these being static is true. But it can be changed by fundamental structural changes. Netherlands rate has increased. Why? Polderland. It has more land to exploit.
Dam The Wash and we can ad another percent to Employment Rate.
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
Something you're concluding far too much from based on 40 years of a single measure.
If the primary measures of an economy - Employment Rate and Growth rate - do not change AT ALL no matter what type or philosophy of government, the idea that government can do anything which improve them has no merit.
UK GDP Growth is ALWAYS roughly 2.5% on average. UK Employment Rate is ALWAYS roughly 73.5% on average.
This is at least since the 1950s for GDP and 1960s for Employment.
Nothing any government has done has changed these trends, the UK Economy always returns to this position from any short term movement.
It is the fundamental flaw of both the mainstream political establishment in the UK (and other countries) that they believe that they can change these fundamental measures.
Once you understand and accept this, you realise that government can never, ever make things better for the country as a whole.
You're ignoring the potential of supply side reforms that can change the fundamental potential. For instance, I think in the 70s the underlying growth potential was around 2% p.a. and Thatcher's reforms probably lifted it to 2.5%. Over a generation that makes a huge difference.
They take a lot longer to take effect though, and are less noticeable in the headline figures
Garbage , it was Scotland's oil and sale of the nations assets that raised it in that period, nothing whatsoever to do with Thatcher and her scorched earth economics.
PS : we are still paying for her stupidity given the lack of decent social housing , public utilities privatised and chiselling the public , etc.
No, it wasn't.
Why don't you go and spend 3 years studying microeconomics and then we can have this debate in a rather more productive manner.
Alternatively, go and google NAIRU and the impact of Thatcher's reforms and tell me what you find.
But questions like free treatment for the obese (where there is no hormonal component) or free A&E support for those who undertake high risk sports are fair questions to ask.
@Charles I think you need to have free A&E support for the chap who has been knocked off his bike trying to avoid becoming an obesity statistic or the runner who has torn their ligament. Or the rugby player suffering concussion...
A question for the Tories. How many other banks other than the (only) one we have information on, have offered the same "service" for their clients? A rough estimate will do
Many of them. And they will have been assisted by professional services? And your point is? This has been going on for many years, under governments of all stripes. Under this Government it is finally being tackled.
A question for the Tories. How many other banks other than the (only) one we have information on, have offered the same "service" for their clients? A rough estimate will do
Idiotic question. That's like asking how many people in the high street other than the one that the police just caught are pickpockets. Who the hell knows, its unlikely to be all of them, but it could be quite a lot of them, how will we know until the next whistle-blower or lucky investigator ?
@Charles Yes, prosecuting the rich is always difficult, far better to hound those at the bottom that have limited access to lawyers. In fact, perhaps we could cut legal aid and restrict trial by jury for them to make prosecution even easier?
It's just a question of evidence.
If someone takes benefit money that they are not entitled to, there's usually a pretty clear evidence trail.
If someone avoids tax (used in the proper sense rather than common usage) it's usually a complex scheme and it may be difficult to prove criminal intention. If there is a settlement possible that will result in the full tax being paid, plus interest, plus penalties it may be the revenue maximising (if unsatisfying) thing to do to accept it. That's why, for instance, HMRC is pursuing the Ingenious Media celebs for settlement ahead of the court case.
Where there is real tax evasion, I'd absolutely agree that should be prosecuted. The problem is that it is often structured in a very complex manner, using non-transparent jurisdictions, and therefore may be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
Something you're concluding far too much from based on 40 years of a single measure.
If the primary measures of an economy - Employment Rate and Growth rate - do not change AT ALL no matter what type or philosophy of government, the idea that government can do anything which improve them has no merit.
UK GDP Growth is ALWAYS roughly 2.5% on average. UK Employment Rate is ALWAYS roughly 73.5% on average.
This is at least since the 1950s for GDP and 1960s for Employment.
Nothing any government has done has changed these trends, the UK Economy always returns to this position from any short term movement.
It is the fundamental flaw of both the mainstream political establishment in the UK (and other countries) that they believe that they can change these fundamental measures.
Once you understand and accept this, you realise that government can never, ever make things better for the country as a whole.
You're ignoring the potential of supply side reforms that can change the fundamental potential. For instance, I think in the 70s the underlying growth potential was around 2% p.a. and Thatcher's reforms probably lifted it to 2.5%. Over a generation that makes a huge difference.
They take a lot longer to take effect though, and are less noticeable in the headline figures
No, I'm accounting for the Supply Side argument, it cannot be demonstrated and I linked the stats higher up. There's no evidence of the impact of loosening the Supply Side, which let's be honest predominantly meant loosening Labour supply.
All Supply Side economics did was Nationalise costs previously borne by business such as Pension costs. No impact on growth rate, no impact on employment rate.
Missed that link.
Logically the argument that businesses are reluctant to hire if it is difficult to fire makes a great deal of intellectual sense, and would explain the difference between France and the UK, for instance.
But NAIRU is a more important measure than employment rate when measuring economic potential.
New accounts show Tony Blair's biggest company paid just £300k corporation tax on £14m turnover with almost £13m written off as 'administrative expenses'
I wonder who paid the higher percentage of their income as tax, him or Mr Fisk ?
(i) BBC1 ~7.30 am, there was a very interesting interview with a HMRC spokeswoman. She gave an example of investment in the film industry (with tax benefits) was done to encourage such investment, but only when it became so large did HMRC realise that many people were using it legally to avoid taxes and so they go to court to get it declared a form of evasion. Sound like bad planning at HMRC or being ignorant of human nature.
(ii) Some Swiss Banks have negative interest on deposits - so I presume that this 'loss' can be set against UK tax.
(iii) Cash in Hand: Most of the tradesmen around here (small builders, plumbers, electricians, etc) tell me that between 25%-40% of their income is cash-in-hand which is not declared income. Their opinions of EdM are not printable.
Re: Part Time Workers: Around here, these are mainly OAPs who are glad to increase their income, and mums who are happy to work around schoolhours as they cannot afford childcare costs. Many of these mums will also work one to two evenings/nights at a pub or a care home.
Not really true. The unemployment rate changed dramatically in the 70s. Prior to thatcher with the pursuit of full employment the total number (can't remember the %) was about 700 000, rising up to about 1.4m in 1978. Then when Thatcher came in it famously went up to 3 million and spent most of the time bouncing around in the 2s.
But I'm not talking about the Unemployment Rate (which is a SECONDARY measure of the economy). I'm talking about the primary measure - Employment Rate. It hasn't change. At all.
Something you're concluding far too much from based on 40 years of a single measure.
If the primary measures of an economy - Employment Rate and Growth rate - do not change AT ALL no matter what type or philosophy of government, the idea that government can do anything which improve them has no merit.
UK GDP Growth is ALWAYS roughly 2.5% on average. UK Employment Rate is ALWAYS roughly 73.5% on average.
This is at least since the 1950s for GDP and 1960s for Employment.
Nothing any government has done has changed these trends, the UK Economy always returns to this position from any short term movement.
It is the fundamental flaw of both the mainstream political establishment in the UK (and other countries) that they believe that they can change these fundamental measures.
Once you understand and accept this, you realise that government can never, ever make things better for the country as a whole.
You're ignoring the potential of supply side reforms that can change the fundamental potential. For instance, I think in the 70s the underlying growth potential was around 2% p.a. and Thatcher's reforms probably lifted it to 2.5%. Over a generation that makes a huge difference.
They take a lot longer to take effect though, and are less noticeable in the headline figures
No, I'm accounting for the Supply Side argument, it cannot be demonstrated and I linked the stats higher up. There's no evidence of the impact of loosening the Supply Side, which let's be honest predominantly meant loosening Labour supply.
All Supply Side economics did was Nationalise costs previously borne by business such as Pension costs. No impact on growth rate, no impact on employment rate.
Missed that link.
Logically the argument that businesses are reluctant to hire if it is difficult to fire makes a great deal of intellectual sense, and would explain the difference between France and the UK, for instance.
But NAIRU is a more important measure than employment rate when measuring economic potential.
Even more illustrates the difference between the UK and the USA.
All that chart says is that people with assets get wealthier during a period of asset price inflation. Accurate, but not very interesting.
The charts showing the net impact of government decisions are much more interesting. IIRC, the richest 10th did worst, followed by the 2nd richest, then the poorest and the 2nd poorest. No one in the middle did that badly, although I think (from memory) 5/6/7 (with 10 being the richest) did slight better than 3/4.
It is very interesting because the goal of QE is not to inflate asset prices, it is to introduce liquidity into the economy. That all the liquidity created was locked up in assets and never touched the real economy just meant it completely and totally failed.
The best way to introduce liquidity (and also the fairest) is to send a cheque to every individual with a current NI stamp. This money would create the necessary price inflation into the economy and through the multiplier boost growth in the short term.
As those were the two alleged goals of QE the fact it wasn't done and instead wealth was effectively transferred to the already rich, demonstrates the actual goal of the political establishment.
Well QE certainty helped provide liquidity to the banking sector, which was the primary purpose. You're right, though, that not enough of that filtered through to the real economy.
But there is a lot of merit to "helicopter money" as well - it was pretty successful when George W Bush implemented it in the US
I guess it depends on your view of Bush or not whether you think the Tax Refund was a legitimate piece of macro-economic policy or just a bribe. I still tend towards the latter.
"iii) Cash in Hand: Most of the tradesmen around here (small builders, plumbers, electricians, etc) tell me that between 25%-40% of their income is cash-in-hand which is not declared income. Their opinions of EdM are not printable."
Logically the argument that businesses are reluctant to hire if it is difficult to fire makes a great deal of intellectual sense, and would explain the difference between France and the UK, for instance.
But NAIRU is a more important measure than employment rate when measuring economic potential.
It is far harder to fire in Sweden but they seem to have a slightly higher employment ratio. Remember, mostly the argument comes from business themselves. Of course they will argue for anything that might reduce their uncertainty, cost or ability to book short term profit or stock increases.
NAIRU continues to be undermined (like the very concept of Inflation which underpins it) by the nature of a global, homogenised, commodities world economy.
Currency devaluation is a better measure today. But of course that then becomes an argument for Dollarisation.
A question for the Tories. How many other banks other than the (only) one we have information on, have offered the same "service" for their clients? A rough estimate will do
AFAIK, HSBC's issue was a failure to apply UK standards to a Swiss subsidiary that they ran at arm's length. That suggests to me that they were probably the most egregious offender among the UK banks. But there were plenty of Swiss banks that kosher clients would avoid for the fear of being tainted by association.
The Obama administration has leapt to the defence of Greece, warning Germany and Europe’s creditor powers that they must meet Athens half-way to avert a potentially dangerous rupture and a euro break-up.
Caroline Atkinson, the US deputy-national security adviser, said the eurozone authorities had imposed the main burden of adjustment on the weaker deficit states and should do more to accept their share of responsibility for the euro crisis. “They have asymmetric rules. They need to make it socially fairer,” she said.
But questions like free treatment for the obese (where there is no hormonal component) or free A&E support for those who undertake high risk sports are fair questions to ask.
@Charles I think you need to have free A&E support for the chap who has been knocked off his bike trying to avoid becoming an obesity statistic or the runner who has torn their ligament. Or the rugby player suffering concussion...
@Indigo Not this one, he was as batshit insane as Maggie. Public spending increases were necessary, but badly done, and his government relied on "Maggie's Myth" for it's economic policy.
All that chart says is that people with assets get wealthier during a period of asset price inflation. Accurate, but not very interesting.
The charts showing the net impact of government decisions are much more interesting. IIRC, the richest 10th did worst, followed by the 2nd richest, then the poorest and the 2nd poorest. No one in the middle did that badly, although I think (from memory) 5/6/7 (with 10 being the richest) did slight better than 3/4.
It is very interesting because the goal of QE is not to inflate asset prices, it is to introduce liquidity into the economy. That all the liquidity created was locked up in assets and never touched the real economy just meant it completely and totally failed.
The best way to introduce liquidity (and also the fairest) is to send a cheque to every individual with a current NI stamp. This money would create the necessary price inflation into the economy and through the multiplier boost growth in the short term.
As those were the two alleged goals of QE the fact it wasn't done and instead wealth was effectively transferred to the already rich, demonstrates the actual goal of the political establishment.
Well QE certainty helped provide liquidity to the banking sector, which was the primary purpose. You're right, though, that not enough of that filtered through to the real economy.
But there is a lot of merit to "helicopter money" as well - it was pretty successful when George W Bush implemented it in the US
I guess it depends on your view of Bush or not whether you think the Tax Refund was a legitimate piece of macro-economic policy or just a bribe. I still tend towards the latter.
You suggested it!
I suggested it as an alternative to Quantitative Easing with far better and fairer consequences. The Dotcom bubble was well burst and recovery pretty much complete by the time the Tax Refund was issued. The requirement for liquidity in early 2001 was not really there. It was as it seemed - an electoral bribe.
The Obama administration has leapt to the defence of Greece, warning Germany and Europe’s creditor powers that they must meet Athens half-way to avert a potentially dangerous rupture and a euro break-up.
Caroline Atkinson, the US deputy-national security adviser, said the eurozone authorities had imposed the main burden of adjustment on the weaker deficit states and should do more to accept their share of responsibility for the euro crisis. “They have asymmetric rules. They need to make it socially fairer,” she said.
The Obama administration has leapt to the defence of Greece, warning Germany and Europe’s creditor powers that they must meet Athens half-way to avert a potentially dangerous rupture and a euro break-up.
Caroline Atkinson, the US deputy-national security adviser, said the eurozone authorities had imposed the main burden of adjustment on the weaker deficit states and should do more to accept their share of responsibility for the euro crisis. “They have asymmetric rules. They need to make it socially fairer,” she said.
@Charles Can't the benefits cheats just say it was a misunderstanding, then argue how much they should pay back? The government would get a better monetary return than locking them up?
The Obama administration has leapt to the defence of Greece, warning Germany and Europe’s creditor powers that they must meet Athens half-way to avert a potentially dangerous rupture and a euro break-up.
Caroline Atkinson, the US deputy-national security adviser, said the eurozone authorities had imposed the main burden of adjustment on the weaker deficit states and should do more to accept their share of responsibility for the euro crisis. “They have asymmetric rules. They need to make it socially fairer,” she said.
Germany and Greece both need to accept that they'd be better off with seperate currencies imo - neither seems to.
No they both need to accept fiscal union forcing the German government to spend more than they would otherwise like and the Greek government to spend less.
As a family we find increasingly that more and more charities fall outside of our giving guidelines. We do not give to charities who have or have developed political objectives or views/bias and not to charities who have highly paid remuneration packages for their executives. We will not give money to charities that will just pass over money to a non-UK country as then it is not traceable.
So increasingly we find that we are giving small amounts to people who are genuinely in need. Have any others found the same?
But questions like free treatment for the obese (where there is no hormonal component) or free A&E support for those who undertake high risk sports are fair questions to ask.
@Charles I think you need to have free A&E support for the chap who has been knocked off his bike trying to avoid becoming an obesity statistic or the runner who has torn their ligament. Or the rugby player suffering concussion...
Comments
Tax Avoidance and Tax Fraud
By comparison to benefit fraud, lost revenues from tax avoidance and tax evasion seems much greater. Using some measures of tax evasion and tax avoidance.
£70 billion of tax evasion,
£25 billion tax avoidance
£25 billion of unpaid tax
Tax research pdf | Tax Gap
Others claim lost tax receipts are up to £150bn a year PCS.org.uk
"Tax research pdf | Tax Gap"
I won't comment on the numbers, but that organisation is funded by unions.
:tumbleweed:
* Marque Senile is not a troll: He is just a very silly Lib-Dhimmie moron.
This GE must be one of the most difficult to predict that you and I can recall. A straw poll of the PB cognoscenti would be instructive, and fun.
Can't find the damn graph I was looking at for Employment Rate now, searches get filled by Unemployment rates.
Chart 2 shows the addition of 1.5m net jobs, despite significant reduction in public sector employment: the result of the government creating an economic environment where private companies are willing to invest. That's got to be deemed a success.
Chart 6 shows the employment rate: you are right that it has moved in a fairly tight range - 55 to 60- over the last 40 years. But there has been a very strong recovery in the last 5 years: from 58 to 59.5%. It may look like a small shift, but it's absolutely a strong trend and makes a huge difference for the individuals who it affects
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/ka-ching-the-british-consumer-boom-continues/
If I go to Prestwick it is in one of my BMW's , preferably the gas guzzling SUV.
Almost makes me wish I lived in England so I could wave to you in your cardboard box as I wafted past.
PS , if you had been speaking about yourself you would have missed out "minicab" from your pathetic jibe.
Perhaps we should use the HMRC figures? They are bound to show that benefit fraud outweighs tax evasion?
Mr. G, I am a skinny one (apparently a few months ago I weighed the same as the average Eritrean, since when I have lost weight). It's the self-inflicted nature, coupled with guaranteed taxpayer-funded healthcare which is the issue. A man has the right to eat cake all day long, but it's morally suspect to do so then demand his neighbours fund his liposuction or other operations/medical procedures. If we didn't have taxpayer-funded healthcare and substantial benefits in this country it wouldn't be an issue.
The taxpayer ought not be a mug to be milked for money by the feckless, the lazy, and those who willingly inflict upon themselves ailments borne of vice and excess. If we punish the hard-working and fling money, without a thought, at the bone idle or those committing self-harm [which will then require the taxpayer-funded hospitals to mend] then there's only one sort of behaviour we'll be encouraging.
'If only the Tories were so interested in really helping people retain employment or even get employment.'
Cut the crap Malcolm , you would be all over this like a rash if it was a Tory or Labour council prioritizing booze & food over a teaching job. You just look idiotic.
Why council taxpayers have to pay for booze & food for part time Councillors is a separate issue ,but stuffing their faces with free food & booze is clearly the priority in this council.
Be fair to the fatties, they won't be an excessive burden on the pensions bill. Now if we could only persuade them all to smoke ...
At whose expense though did they do better? Labour? Tory? Government? Opposition? It's one reason I'm not convinced the TV debates made a difference in 2010. The Lib Dems would have got the same broadcast exposure as the other parties and Clegg could probably have held up the Tory onslaught.
I'm assuming landlords will simply pass the charge onto tenants too. Correct?
noun
an unpleasant or contemptible person.
A coincidence?
My impression is that they have been much more aggressive and much more successful in tax recovery - just look, for instance, at the Ingenious Media cases.
By contrast, their forecasts ability is for the birds: they massively over-estimated the recovery from the Luxembourg agreement with the Swiss, for instance. But offsetting that, they massively under-estimated the tax recovery from the Corporate Envelope reforms on UK property.
Next you will be telling me there is a Tory surge and they are actually nice people.
He said 55-60 over 40 years is fairly tight, and that 1.5% was a very strong recovery over 5 years.
Surely even a McDuffer like you can understand that he's right?
Your are proposing that the country should not investigate criminal activity as long as it is profitable?
They take a lot longer to take effect though, and are less noticeable in the headline figures
Give the guy a Noble Prize in Economics...!
:tw@t-watch:
I do not start from an assumption that there is not much that can be done because the rich will move elsewhere; I start from a position of certain knowledge supported by decades of evidence that companies and wealthy individuals migrate to find favourable tax environments, that this places a limitation on what any government can do before their interventions become self defeating, and that one of the consequences of globalisation is that migration is becoming easier, while co-ordinated international efforts to prevent profit shifting are complex. All this advocates caution and a sophisticated approach, but it certainly does not mean that the rich should not be taxed more, or loopholes not closed. You are lazily tarring me and this Government with a stereotype that is refuted by the facts.
From Labour I see very little beyond naive sloganising. A leader opposed to avoidance but unable to define it, who thinks businesses divide neatly into producers and predators, who doesn't seem to understand it is perfectly legitimate for a global business with UK interests to be based in Switzerland, or that that business could still contribute enormously to the UK economy such that its foreign-born and domiciled boss should have a voice. Who smears a philanthropist without any evidence his affairs are dodgy, and then denies it. Who are untroubled by evidence that their 50% tax rate contributed little to the economy. And who have opposed virtually every measure to reduced public expenditure, predicted disaster at every turn, and who have been comprehensively proved wrong by the economic data. This has been the most amateurish opposition since at least 1997-2001, and probably many decades before then.
" How does one pursue a brass plate in Panama for the tax?"
Perhaps David C. knows? His father was one of the first to set up a tax avoidance company after Maggie changed the law?
I'm not sure about making them criminally liable - it's hard enough to recruit high quality board directors for banks as it is.
The issue, as always, with organisations as complex as banks, is proving criminality. That said, I think the regulator should have been much more aggressive in withdrawing individual licences.
PS : we are still paying for her stupidity given the lack of decent social housing , public utilities privatised and chiselling the public , etc.
What you just said is very similar to what Charles said in the first place.
https://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/PA_esf-ca-app-content/content/pws/content/personal/pdfs/hbeu-interim-report-2014.pdf
But questions like free treatment for the obese (where there is no hormonal component) or free A&E support for those who undertake high risk sports are fair questions to ask.
Yes, prosecuting the rich is always difficult, far better to hound those at the bottom that have limited access to lawyers.
In fact, perhaps we could cut legal aid and restrict trial by jury for them to make prosecution even easier?
All Supply Side economics did was Nationalise costs previously borne by business such as Pension costs. No impact on growth rate, no impact on employment rate.
PS: It si not only your name that is simple and consistent.
But there is a lot of merit to "helicopter money" as well - it was pretty successful when George W Bush implemented it in the US
' The problem seems to be that the Tories start from an assumption that you share: not that much can be done because the rich will just go elsewhere. I would like to see that assumption challenged.'
Are you not aware of what's been happening in France for the past three years?
You obviously were not around in the 70's when we had the mass exodus of both the wealthy & aspirational due to the punitive tax rates.
Norway, on the other hand had a very consistent period of 4% growth between 1975 and 2002 before recalibrating on the long term developed western economy trend of 2.5%.
Scotland would have similarly benefited, reaching Norwegian levels of wealth had it been Independent.
It wasn't particularly helpful for me. Yes my flat has gone up substantially in value. But the house I aspire to move to has gone up by more in absolute terms - which makes it unlikely I will ever be able to afford it.
So the monetary value of my assets has gone up, but the life options have narrowed. I wouldn't count that successful!
(As an aside, I am well off, certainly, because I have worked hard all my life. But not "very rich" by any standards! The value of an asset that does not belong to me, and cannot be sold is nil as far as my personal wealth is concerned!...)
Probably....
TBH I remain to be persuaded of your faith in the stability of the employment rate - but no doubt one of us will find it sooner or later!
They most certainly enriched London at the expense of beggaring Scotland.
58-59.5 over 5.
Do the math...
"In Trusts we trust"
I wonder what that would be in Latin? :-)
The better point to make is that the Conservatives cannot truly be serious about cuts while they continue to preserve the benefits available to elderly, many of which are unjustifiable. But I don't see Labour having the courage to tackle that either.
On the basis of the 16-64 group the volatility would be more pronounced - and hence the impact of this government's actions would be even starker.
Landlords: I'm sure they will try to. In the back of my mind, I'm thinking about a 1% annual rate, so I'm not sure that they would be able to make a 25% increase in total rental costs stick (thinking London yields of 4%) .
How many other banks other than the (only) one we have information on, have offered the same "service" for their clients?
A rough estimate will do
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110223093550/defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/progress/international/40a.htm
BTW, my point about these being static is true. But it can be changed by fundamental structural changes. Netherlands rate has increased. Why? Polderland. It has more land to exploit.
Dam The Wash and we can ad another percent to Employment Rate.
Why don't you go and spend 3 years studying microeconomics and then we can have this debate in a rather more productive manner.
Alternatively, go and google NAIRU and the impact of Thatcher's reforms and tell me what you find.
Professional services? Do you mean like the one Ian Cameron set up when Maggie deregulated?
If someone takes benefit money that they are not entitled to, there's usually a pretty clear evidence trail.
If someone avoids tax (used in the proper sense rather than common usage) it's usually a complex scheme and it may be difficult to prove criminal intention. If there is a settlement possible that will result in the full tax being paid, plus interest, plus penalties it may be the revenue maximising (if unsatisfying) thing to do to accept it. That's why, for instance, HMRC is pursuing the Ingenious Media celebs for settlement ahead of the court case.
Where there is real tax evasion, I'd absolutely agree that should be prosecuted. The problem is that it is often structured in a very complex manner, using non-transparent jurisdictions, and therefore may be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
The benefit cheats need better lawyers and financial advisers to make them upstanding members of society?
Logically the argument that businesses are reluctant to hire if it is difficult to fire makes a great deal of intellectual sense, and would explain the difference between France and the UK, for instance.
But NAIRU is a more important measure than employment rate when measuring economic potential.
(i) BBC1 ~7.30 am, there was a very interesting interview with a HMRC spokeswoman. She gave an example of investment in the film industry (with tax benefits) was done to encourage such investment, but only when it became so large did HMRC realise that many people were using it legally to avoid taxes and so they go to court to get it declared a form of evasion.
Sound like bad planning at HMRC or being ignorant of human nature.
(ii) Some Swiss Banks have negative interest on deposits - so I presume that this 'loss' can be set against UK tax.
(iii) Cash in Hand: Most of the tradesmen around here (small builders, plumbers, electricians, etc) tell me that between 25%-40% of their income is cash-in-hand which is not declared income. Their opinions of EdM are not printable.
Re: Part Time Workers: Around here, these are mainly OAPs who are glad to increase their income, and mums who are happy to work around schoolhours as they cannot afford childcare costs. Many of these mums will also work one to two evenings/nights at a pub or a care home.
Tony the Tory?
Shocked I am.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364009/4382_Measuring_Tax_Gaps_2014_IW_v4B_accessible_20141014.pdf
"iii) Cash in Hand: Most of the tradesmen around here (small builders, plumbers, electricians, etc) tell me that between 25%-40% of their income is cash-in-hand which is not declared income. Their opinions of EdM are not printable."
Criminals prefer Dave?
'Queen makes Prince Andrew a vice-admiral'
http://tinyurl.com/ksjz67k
NAIRU continues to be undermined (like the very concept of Inflation which underpins it) by the nature of a global, homogenised, commodities world economy.
Currency devaluation is a better measure today. But of course that then becomes an argument for Dollarisation.
Obama jumps into the Greek's corner http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/11411728/White-House-warns-Europe-on-Greek-showdown.html
How can anyone think Tony Blair is to the left of Ed Miliband... genuine question !
Also which posters specifically ?
Not this one, he was as batshit insane as Maggie.
Public spending increases were necessary, but badly done, and his government relied on "Maggie's Myth" for it's economic policy.
Germany and Greece both need to accept that they'd be better off with seperate currencies imo - neither seems to.
It's a silly argument really since that difference is almost certainly a product of the different political and economic climates rather than the men
Greece I could see. Less clear on the argument for Germany being better off
Can't the benefits cheats just say it was a misunderstanding, then argue how much they should pay back?
The government would get a better monetary return than locking them up?
No they both need to accept fiscal union forcing the German government to spend more than they would otherwise like and the Greek government to spend less.
As a family we find increasingly that more and more charities fall outside of our giving guidelines. We do not give to charities who have or have developed political objectives or views/bias and not to charities who have highly paid remuneration packages for their executives. We will not give money to charities that will just pass over money to a non-UK country as then it is not traceable.
So increasingly we find that we are giving small amounts to people who are genuinely in need. Have any others found the same?