Mr. P, the alternative to a customs border is the UK staying in the customs union which is contrary to all reason and both campaigns in the referendum.
It makes more sense to remain in the EU. Leaving it to stay in the customs union is crackers.
Interesting and persuasive piece. Is this not exactly what Blair did?
Interesting perhaps. Not sure about persuasive as it doesnt have any solutions. How do you stop a politicians son or daughter from starting a hedge fund or joining a private companys board? Open to ideas but seems impractical to me.
The point it makes well is that we are not even looking for solutions because this has become okay. Recognising the existence of the problem is the first step to a solution. So much is hidden behind "consulting" that does not bear close examination. In this country this tends to be fairly small beer, an appointment on various Boards and a contract with Goldman Sachs but we have very little influence compared to the USA.
But what solutions would you suggest? Personally I would prefer MPs not to have outside jobs of any kind but think even that wont find broad support, especially amongst Tories.
Stopping family members from having jobs seems absurd and inequitable for them, they may not even get along with their politician relative. Part of society is and has always been cronyism, it is not pretty or fair but not sure its indirect form can be stopped.
Morning. You’ll be glad you missed Peak PB Leaver last night, when several posters attempted to claim that King Billy on his horse was not divisive sectarian iconography.
Of the 11 pollsters currently operating in the UK, only 4 of them have reported in the last two weeks: YouGov, Opinium, Survation, ComRes. The 7 that haven't done so are Ipsos Mori, Kantar, Deltapoll, Panelbase, BMG, Hanbury Reseach, ICM.
And only three of them have conducted Scottish polls in the last 18 months (Panelbase, Survation, YouGov). And the freshest one is now a month old.
The Clown’s ascendancy and Ruth Davidson’s consequent resignation have changed the game, but we have almost no data from the critical Scottish battleground.
I keep hearing SNP 51. It's in the bag. Nicola couldn't have dreamt this very Eglish farce in her wildest imagination. From here in France it looks horrendous!
Thanks Roger, but that’s very subjective.
I, and I presume wise punters, want more objective data.
Theoretically, The Clown’s arrival and #RuthForFM’s departure could be *good* news for the Scons. I am tired of the universal(?) assumption that all is tickety boo.
Of the 11 pollsters currently operating in the UK, only 4 of them have reported in the last two weeks: YouGov, Opinium, Survation, ComRes. The 7 that haven't done so are Ipsos Mori, Kantar, Deltapoll, Panelbase, BMG, Hanbury Reseach, ICM.
I'm expecting an avalanche of polls in the next day or two, now that the conference season is over. Will there be a Boris Bounce or a Swinson Swing?
1) Have the people who were making claims about hedge funds profiting from No Deal publicly supported Boris proposal ? Because if there is a Deal agreed wont those hedge funds then make equivalent losses ?
Well no, of course not. We shouldn't be choosing policy on the basis of how it affects small numbers of people -- good or bad -- but on the basis of how it affects the country as a whole. Surprising that you didn't see that before asking.
Mr. Doof, how do cricketers generally fare at SPOTY?
It's not something I know that much about, but some sports seem to have more motivated fanbases than others when it comes to voting.
Four wins: Laker, Steele, Botham and Flintoff.
Stokes really ought to make it five.
The surprise on this list is David Steele. He was good batsman, but not one of the very best in the last 50 years. I guess the Montreal Olympics was not a particularly good year for GB.
1) Have the people who were making claims about hedge funds profiting from No Deal publicly supported Boris proposal ? Because if there is a Deal agreed wont those hedge funds then make equivalent losses ?
Well no, of course not. We shouldn't be choosing policy on the basis of how it affects small numbers of people -- good or bad -- but on the basis of how it affects the country as a whole. Surprising that you didn't see that before asking.
Indeed so.
But I'm not one of the people who have been making claims about government strategy being controlled by hedge funds.
There is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0 if need be. We know Bercow is in the chair till 31/10 and we now have the truncated post SC prorogation dates as well. Even if Boris manages to get round the Benn Act there is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0
And of course preemptive challenges are already before the Court of Session both in terms of sanctioning non compliance and the Court acting instead of the PM to ensure compliance.
I know that legal action is rumbling on as we speak, but if it was clear Johnson was going absolutely hard-ball for 31 October, didn't care what he had to blow up to get his way, and Benn Act 1 had already failed, then entrusting that Benn Act 2 would make things all better again sounds like it would take a huge leap of faith.
I get that you might want to pass Benn Act 2 anyway, even if you think it's a paper bullet and Johnson is going to wreck that one too, if only so you can point and shout LAW-BREAKER! or even better CRIMINAL!
But surely at some point the political trigger gets pulled in this scenario? Perhaps the opposition are too divided, or have balls of steel. There'd be one heck of a blame-game if their misjudgment and inaction combined with Johnson's determination resulted in No Deal.
" In accordance with its own constitutional requirements " - The final aribiter of whether we've left or not are the Courts - The UK Supreme Court and the CJEU. Unless Boris is going to stage a military coup he can be sucessfully bound by statute law. If Parliament wills it.
I am really not sure what the EU would make of a letter signed by the Clerk of the Court of Session as requested in Aiden O'Neill's latest petition. Would they regard that as a letter written in terms of our own constitutional requirements even if the PM was saying that he does not support the application? I think that it is worth remembering that those deciding this are in the main PMs too.
I also think we are surely at the point when the default assumption that the EU is going to say yes to anything and allow this shambles to continue has to be questioned.
David, as a Scottish lawyer, would *you* regard a letter signed by the Clerk of the Court of Session as fulfilling our own constitutional requirements? In other words, do you respect the jurisdiction of the Court of Session?
I assume that you are at risk of disciplinary action if you publicly reject the authority of the College of Justice.
Mr. Doof, how do cricketers generally fare at SPOTY?
It's not something I know that much about, but some sports seem to have more motivated fanbases than others when it comes to voting.
Four wins: Laker, Steele, Botham and Flintoff.
Stokes really ought to make it five.
The surprise on this list is David Steele. He was good batsman, but not one of the very best in the last 50 years. I guess the Montreal Olympics was not a particularly good year for GB.
It was his performance in IIRC, the Lords Test that year which swung it. IMHO, anyway.
1) Have the people who were making claims about hedge funds profiting from No Deal publicly supported Boris proposal ? Because if there is a Deal agreed wont those hedge funds then make equivalent losses ?
As I pointed out below, it's little or nothing to do with profiting from currency speculation (though no doubt the last year or so may have offered profitable opportunities) - rather the desire any forthcoming EU regulatory oversight.
Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read. We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
We need something rather closer to home, on that view. A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.
As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in: Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written. Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens. I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
Because then no-one will want to bring their money here. And the super-rich will skidaddle. Yay! chers the Left.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Mr. Doof, how do cricketers generally fare at SPOTY?
It's not something I know that much about, but some sports seem to have more motivated fanbases than others when it comes to voting.
Four wins: Laker, Steele, Botham and Flintoff.
Stokes really ought to make it five.
The surprise on this list is David Steele. He was good batsman, but not one of the very best in the last 50 years. I guess the Montreal Olympics was not a particularly good year for GB.
He was an 'ordinary bloke' who successfully faced up to Lillian Thomson after the big stars failed disastrously.
An inspiration to the grey haired spectacle wearers everywhere.
Mr. Doof, how do cricketers generally fare at SPOTY?
It's not something I know that much about, but some sports seem to have more motivated fanbases than others when it comes to voting.
Four wins: Laker, Steele, Botham and Flintoff.
Stokes really ought to make it five.
The surprise on this list is David Steele. He was good batsman, but not one of the very best in the last 50 years. I guess the Montreal Olympics was not a particularly good year for GB.
He was an 'ordinary bloke' who successfully faced up to Lillian Thomson after the big stars failed disastrously.
An inspiration to the grey haired spectacle wearers everywhere.
Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read. We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
We need something rather closer to home, on that view. A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.
As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in: Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written. Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens. I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
Because then no-one will want to bring their money here. And the super-rich will skidaddle. Yay! chers the Left.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Why does Labour hate the NHS so much?
If the only way we can fund public services is by feeding off crumbs from the super-rich the whole system needs reformed.
Mr. P, the alternative to a customs border is the UK staying in the customs union which is contrary to all reason and both campaigns in the referendum.
It makes more sense to remain in the EU. Leaving it to stay in the customs union is crackers.
So what?
Doesn't matter if it's crackers or not. Many Remainers think that leaving the EU at all is crackers.
We're way beyond the point where something being contrary to reason is a sticking point. No outcome from here is going to leave us better off, or result in anything other than a worse position from where we started. As has been pointed out almost ad infinitum, No Deal is contrary to the referendum campaign, but that doesn't stop people from advocating it, either. "The ballot paper said 'Leave'; this is leave."
Customs Union fits the requirement of minimum disruption and fulfils the exact question given on the ballot paper as well. As valid an outcome as any, and with less hassle.
It's a good play by Boris for sure this new deal proposal, puts the EU and Remainers on the back foot again. However the EU are not stupid and will not outright veto this arrangement. They will likely say "thank you for your work, it's an interesting proposal but not yet acceptable, let's discuss further" and force Boris to either climb down further or walk away. Getting the ERG behind him shows that there is much less faith in No deal being possible now, otherwise they wouldn't take the risk of saying they'd back it in the event the EU agrees.
1) Have the people who were making claims about hedge funds profiting from No Deal publicly supported Boris proposal ? Because if there is a Deal agreed wont those hedge funds then make equivalent losses ?
As I pointed out below, it's little or nothing to do with profiting from currency speculation (though no doubt the last year or so may have offered profitable opportunities) - rather the desire any forthcoming EU regulatory oversight.
That might be so but it assumes that the UK never gets a government committed to greater regulation of 'big finance'.
For example a Corbyn government following a painful No Deal Brexit is unlikely to the hedge funds friend.
Are you more enthusiastic about Warren than you were about HRC last time ?
I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about HRC, though clearly she was a better option than Trump. I did try to repudiate some of the lies about her health. Quite obviously these have been confirmed to be false.
Yes, I quite like Warren. She has some real energy and is building momentum. Apart from Biden or Sanders, and the weird hippie, pretty much all the Democrat candidates are appointable.
I have backed her as Dem candidate at 20 some months back and pretty comfortable with that. I haven't backed her so much as POTUS, but think that reasonable value at 3.85.
Mr. Doof, how do cricketers generally fare at SPOTY?
It's not something I know that much about, but some sports seem to have more motivated fanbases than others when it comes to voting.
Four wins: Laker, Steele, Botham and Flintoff.
Stokes really ought to make it five.
The surprise on this list is David Steele. He was good batsman, but not one of the very best in the last 50 years. I guess the Montreal Olympics was not a particularly good year for GB.
He was an 'ordinary bloke' who successfully faced up to Lillian Thomson after the big stars failed disastrously.
An inspiration to the grey haired spectacle wearers everywhere.
Mr. Doof, how do cricketers generally fare at SPOTY?
It's not something I know that much about, but some sports seem to have more motivated fanbases than others when it comes to voting.
Four wins: Laker, Steele, Botham and Flintoff.
Stokes really ought to make it five.
The surprise on this list is David Steele. He was good batsman, but not one of the very best in the last 50 years. I guess the Montreal Olympics was not a particularly good year for GB.
Our main medal hope in Montreal was Brendan Foster who had some sort of tummy trouble, and the team's doctor was not a gastroenterologist. Since then, athletes are barely allowed to cross the road without a medium-sized general hospital on standby. I vaguely recall a couple of Olympics ago, the Guardian musing on why the British archery team had a neurosurgeon in tow.
Shades of losing the World Cup in 1970, which may have cost Labour the election that year.
1) Have the people who were making claims about hedge funds profiting from No Deal publicly supported Boris proposal ? Because if there is a Deal agreed wont those hedge funds then make equivalent losses ?
As I pointed out below, it's little or nothing to do with profiting from currency speculation (though no doubt the last year or so may have offered profitable opportunities) - rather the desire any forthcoming EU regulatory oversight.
That might be so but it assumes that the UK never gets a government committed to greater regulation of 'big finance'.
For example a Corbyn government following a painful No Deal Brexit is unlikely to the hedge funds friend.
Continent-wide regulation the only way, because, as another poster ably points out, it's easy for capital to float above the level of nation states and minimise its tax burden. Harder is for it to float above continent-wide regulatory zones. Simply put, countries have less power than continents. And fundamentally we need to have resource management under democratic control, otherwise wealth inequality is totally unleashed and very dark outcomes lie ahead. That's not an argument for persistent state interference with the day-to-day running of things business -- we really shouldn't throw capitalism out because it works -- but it is an argument for unions of countries to counterbalance the overweaning power of vast capital accumulations.
Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.
Why don't you just wait and see what happens? These straw clutching assertions are silly.
I will wait and see. But Johnson has to walk away because he is the one with the deadline.
I think that you will find that you have misjudged the UK public on this one. Apart from hardline Remainers and the predictable reaction of the likes of Swinson and Corbyn, there is I think a mood that the country needs to get something over the line now, and that for now this will do. Johnson has clearly compromised and yet remarkably appears to hold out the prospect of assembling a coalition of MPs sufficient to get this through in parliament if the EU says yes. So that means that if the EU resorts to just the same tired mantras as ever to back the intransigence it has shown from day one to May and now Johnson, there will be a hardening of attitudes towards the EU and an acceptance by most that they are to blame. Enough MPs are saying that they will back Johnson's plan if the EU does. So the EU can't this time offload the blame for rejection onto the UK parliament, they will have to carry the can themselves.
If the EU do reject it, the reaction here against their unreasonable position will help Johnson as he seeks to appeal to the country in a GE.
The EU will not reject it. That is my point.
However, I agree that Johnson will get public support. That seems to be the likeliest outcome. We will No Deal and the Tories will get their majority. And then what? Trade deals with the US and the EU will be off the table, UK citizens and businesses will be less free, the government will be dependent on the goodwill of third parties to keep all kinds of things we currently take for granted functioning in a recognisable way. So what is the plan? Hope that something turns up?
I can't see the EU accepting the Boris plan, but then I couldn't see the DUP and ERG doing so, so what do I know? Did Boris put Bromine in their tea?
From a personal point of view I have an interest in a case going in front of the ECJ. It is a German case so will go ahead anyway, but has implications here. Not sure what happens with that if we leave. Transition period implications? The Govt will be keen to ignore the result if the case is successful.
If we leave with a deal what does that mean for the parties:
Brexit party becomes the Not Really Brexited party and gets a boost?
Tories lose voters to Brexit party but gain back some/lots of the 21 supporters?
LDs become the rejoiners, which I don't think has the same impact as revokers?
Lab I assume are unchanged as they couldn't decide if they were remainers or leavers anyway and I guess many will feel we have done neither so best to move on and leave well alone.
Are you more enthusiastic about Warren than you were about HRC last time ?
I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about HRC, though clearly she was a better option than Trump. I did try to repudiate some of the lies about her health. Quite obviously these have been confirmed to be false.
Yes, I quite like Warren. She has some real energy and is building momentum. Apart from Biden or Sanders, and the weird hippie, pretty much all the Democrat candidates are appointable.
I have backed her as Dem candidate at 20 some months back and pretty comfortable with that. I haven't backed her so much as POTUS, but think that reasonable value at 3.85.
While Biden still has a lead for the nomination in most national polls it's becoming less commanding by the week. Warren has lead in a couple in the past few days, more often than not outpolling Sanders. Sanders' health problem is going to help her not so much Biden. Although Biden leads, I think that is a bit artificial because Sanders and Warren are competing for much the same constituency, and more generally there is some polling evidence to suggest that Biden's lead will be eroded as the minor candidates drop out (which seems to be taking an eternity).
1) Have the people who were making claims about hedge funds profiting from No Deal publicly supported Boris proposal ? Because if there is a Deal agreed wont those hedge funds then make equivalent losses ?
As I pointed out below, it's little or nothing to do with profiting from currency speculation (though no doubt the last year or so may have offered profitable opportunities) - rather the desire any forthcoming EU regulatory oversight.
That might be so but it assumes that the UK never gets a government committed to greater regulation of 'big finance'.
For example a Corbyn government following a painful No Deal Brexit is unlikely to the hedge funds friend.
Continent-wide regulation the only way, because, as another poster ably points out, it's easy for capital to float above the level of nation states and minimise its tax burden. Harder is for it to float above continent-wide regulatory zones. Simply put, countries have less power than continents. And fundamentally we need to have resource management under democratic control, otherwise wealth inequality is totally unleashed and very dark outcomes lie ahead. That's not an argument for persistent state interference with the day-to-day running of things business -- we really shouldn't throw capitalism out because it works -- but it is an argument for unions of countries to counterbalance the overweaning power of vast capital accumulations.
Who counterbalances the overweaning power of vast continental bureaucracies ?
Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.
Why don't you just wait and see what happens? These straw clutching assertions are silly.
I will wait and see. But Johnson has to walk away because he is the one with the deadline.
I think that you will find that you have misjudged the UK public on this one. Apart from hardline Remainers and the predictable reaction of the likes of Swinson and Corbyn, there is I think a mood that the country needs to get something over the line now, and that for now this will do. Johnson has clearly compromised and yet remarkably appears to hold out the prospect of assembling a coalition of MPs sufficient to get this through in parliament if the EU says yes. So that means that if the EU resorts to just the same tired mantras as ever to back the intransigence it has shown from day one to May and now Johnson, there will be a hardening of attitudes towards the EU and an acceptance by most that they are to blame. Enough MPs are saying that they will back Johnson's plan if the EU does. So the EU can't this time offload the blame for rejection onto the UK parliament, they will have to carry the can themselves.
If the EU do reject it, the reaction here against their unreasonable position will help Johnson as he seeks to appeal to the country in a GE.
The EU will not reject it. That is my point.
However, I agree that Johnson will get public support. That seems to be the likeliest outcome. We will No Deal and the Tories will get their majority. And then what? Trade deals with the US and the EU will be off the table, UK citizens and businesses will be less free, the government will be dependent on the goodwill of third parties to keep all kinds of things we currently take for granted functioning in a recognisable way. So what is the plan? Hope that something turns up?
Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read. We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
We need something rather closer to home, on that view. A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.
As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in: Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written. Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens. I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
Because then no-one will want to bring their money here. And the super-rich will skidaddle. Yay! chers the Left.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Why does Labour hate the NHS so much?
If the only way we can fund public services is by feeding off crumbs from the super-rich the whole system needs reformed.
Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
1) Have the people who were making claims about hedge funds profiting from No Deal publicly supported Boris proposal ? Because if there is a Deal agreed wont those hedge funds then make equivalent losses ?
As I pointed out below, it's little or nothing to do with profiting from currency speculation (though no doubt the last year or so may have offered profitable opportunities) - rather the desire any forthcoming EU regulatory oversight.
That might be so but it assumes that the UK never gets a government committed to greater regulation of 'big finance'.
For example a Corbyn government following a painful No Deal Brexit is unlikely to the hedge funds friend.
Continent-wide regulation the only way, because, as another poster ably points out, it's easy for capital to float above the level of nation states and minimise its tax burden. Harder is for it to float above continent-wide regulatory zones. Simply put, countries have less power than continents. And fundamentally we need to have resource management under democratic control, otherwise wealth inequality is totally unleashed and very dark outcomes lie ahead. That's not an argument for persistent state interference with the day-to-day running of things business -- we really shouldn't throw capitalism out because it works -- but it is an argument for unions of countries to counterbalance the overweaning power of vast capital accumulations.
Who counterbalances the overweaning power of vast continental bureaucracies ?
My business just hit one of the missed consequences of Brexit. We need to import gas from Europe as no UK supplier. The number of ship crossings are being cut as logistic companies figure brexit will mean less trade between Europe and UK. As a result my gas prices have now risen 25% so far this year due mostly to logistics. They previously rose 25% in the last decade.
This will eat into your profitability, presumably, meaning that you will pay less Corporaiton tax than otherwise would have been the case. And if it is happening to your business it is happening to many more. This is just one example of how No Deal hurts us even if there is absolutely no day to day disruption.
1) Have the people who were making claims about hedge funds profiting from No Deal publicly supported Boris proposal ? Because if there is a Deal agreed wont those hedge funds then make equivalent losses ?
As I pointed out below, it's little or nothing to do with profiting from currency speculation (though no doubt the last year or so may have offered profitable opportunities) - rather the desire any forthcoming EU regulatory oversight.
That might be so but it assumes that the UK never gets a government committed to greater regulation of 'big finance'.
For example a Corbyn government following a painful No Deal Brexit is unlikely to the hedge funds friend.
Continent-wide regulation the only way, because, as another poster ably points out, it's easy for capital to float above the level of nation states and minimise its tax burden. Harder is for it to float above continent-wide regulatory zones. Simply put, countries have less power than continents. And fundamentally we need to have resource management under democratic control, otherwise wealth inequality is totally unleashed and very dark outcomes lie ahead. That's not an argument for persistent state interference with the day-to-day running of things business -- we really shouldn't throw capitalism out because it works -- but it is an argument for unions of countries to counterbalance the overweaning power of vast capital accumulations.
No it isn't.
When theory meets reality there is only one winner. The continental power is limited by the conflict between the weakest link and the prime need for political compromise to retain the essential homogony.
1) Have the people who were making claims about hedge funds profiting from No Deal publicly supported Boris proposal ? Because if there is a Deal agreed wont those hedge funds then make equivalent losses ?
As I pointed out below, it's little or nothing to do with profiting from currency speculation (though no doubt the last year or so may have offered profitable opportunities) - rather the desire any forthcoming EU regulatory oversight.
That might be so but it assumes that the UK never gets a government committed to greater regulation of 'big finance'.
For example a Corbyn government following a painful No Deal Brexit is unlikely to the hedge funds friend.
Continent-wide regulation the only way, because, as another poster ably points out, it's easy for capital to float above the level of nation states and minimise its tax burden. Harder is for it to float above continent-wide regulatory zones. Simply put, countries have less power than continents. And fundamentally we need to have resource management under democratic control, otherwise wealth inequality is totally unleashed and very dark outcomes lie ahead. That's not an argument for persistent state interference with the day-to-day running of things business -- we really shouldn't throw capitalism out because it works -- but it is an argument for unions of countries to counterbalance the overweaning power of vast capital accumulations.
Who counterbalances the overweaning power of vast continental bureaucracies ?
Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read. We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
We need something rather closer to home, on that view. A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.
As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in: Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written. Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens. I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
Because then no-one will want to bring their money here. And the super-rich will skidaddle. Yay! chers the Left.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Why does Labour hate the NHS so much?
If the only way we can fund public services is by feeding off crumbs from the super-rich the whole system needs reformed.
Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
Is that true? I vaguely thought most tax was raised from the majority in the middle income bands.
Morning. You’ll be glad you missed Peak PB Leaver last night, when several posters attempted to claim that King Billy on his horse was not divisive sectarian iconography.
Caught up with a bit of it, standard fare round my bit where the lads who endlessly march with their pretendy uniforms and Red Hands of Ulster say that the real sectarians are folk who think they're a bit dickish.
It's just another variation on right wing gaslighting - 'How dare you call me a Nazi just cos I have swastika tatoos and like to rip out the odd Hitlergruß, YOU'RE THE REAL NAZI!!'
1) Have the people who were making claims about hedge funds profiting from No Deal publicly supported Boris proposal ? Because if there is a Deal agreed wont those hedge funds then make equivalent losses ?
As I pointed out below, it's little or nothing to do with profiting from currency speculation (though no doubt the last year or so may have offered profitable opportunities) - rather the desire any forthcoming EU regulatory oversight.
That might be so but it assumes that the UK never gets a government committed to greater regulation of 'big finance'.
For example a Corbyn government following a painful No Deal Brexit is unlikely to the hedge funds friend.
Continent-wide regulation the only way, because, as another poster ably points out, it's easy for capital to float above the level of nation states and minimise its tax burden. Harder is for it to float above continent-wide regulatory zones. Simply put, countries have less power than continents. And fundamentally we need to have resource management under democratic control, otherwise wealth inequality is totally unleashed and very dark outcomes lie ahead. That's not an argument for persistent state interference with the day-to-day running of things business -- we really shouldn't throw capitalism out because it works -- but it is an argument for unions of countries to counterbalance the overweaning power of vast capital accumulations.
No it isn't.
When theory meets reality there is only one winner. The continental power is limited by the conflict between the weakest link and the prime need for political compromise to retain the essential homogony.
You probably need to expand on that a little for me to understand what you mean.
1) Have the people who were making claims about hedge funds profiting from No Deal publicly supported Boris proposal ? Because if there is a Deal agreed wont those hedge funds then make equivalent losses ?
As I pointed out below, it's little or nothing to do with profiting from currency speculation (though no doubt the last year or so may have offered profitable opportunities) - rather the desire any forthcoming EU regulatory oversight.
That might be so but it assumes that the UK never gets a government committed to greater regulation of 'big finance'.
For example a Corbyn government following a painful No Deal Brexit is unlikely to the hedge funds friend.
Continent-wide regulation the only way, because, as another poster ably points out, it's easy for capital to float above the level of nation states and minimise its tax burden. Harder is for it to float above continent-wide regulatory zones. Simply put, countries have less power than continents. And fundamentally we need to have resource management under democratic control, otherwise wealth inequality is totally unleashed and very dark outcomes lie ahead. That's not an argument for persistent state interference with the day-to-day running of things business -- we really shouldn't throw capitalism out because it works -- but it is an argument for unions of countries to counterbalance the overweaning power of vast capital accumulations.
Who counterbalances the overweaning power of vast continental bureaucracies ?
Parliamentary democracy.
That's a failure then at the EU level.
The EU could do with more of that, yes. But it is there.
Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read. We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
We need something rather closer to home, on that view. A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.
As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in: Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written. Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens. I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
Because then no-one will want to bring their money here. And the super-rich will skidaddle. Yay! chers the Left.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Why does Labour hate the NHS so much?
If the only way we can fund public services is by feeding off crumbs from the super-rich the whole system needs reformed.
Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
Is that true? I vaguely thought most tax was raised from the majority in the middle income bands.
The top 1% pay 27% of all income tax...... Don't know the number on VAT, but buying a single Ferrari probably raises more than a whole street full in Hartlepool or Stoke does in a year.
Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.
Why don't you just wait and see what happens? These straw clutching assertions are silly.
I will wait and see. But Johnson has to walk away because he is the one with the deadline.
I think that you will find that you have misjudged the UK public on this one. Apart from hardline Remainers and the predictable reaction of the likes of Swinson and Corbyn, there is I think a mood that the country needs to get something over the line now, and that for now this will do. Johnson has clearly compromised and yet remarkably appears to hold out the prospect of assembling a coalition of MPs sufficient to get this through in parliament if the EU says yes. So that means that if the EU resorts to just the same tired mantras as ever to back the intransigence it has shown from day one to May and now Johnson, there will be a hardening of attitudes towards the EU and an acceptance by most that they are to blame. Enough MPs are saying that they will back Johnson's plan if the EU does. So the EU can't this time offload the blame for rejection onto the UK parliament, they will have to carry the can themselves.
If the EU do reject it, the reaction here against their unreasonable position will help Johnson as he seeks to appeal to the country in a GE.
The EU will not reject it. That is my point.
However, I agree that Johnson will get public support. That seems to be the likeliest outcome. We will No Deal and the Tories will get their majority. And then what? Trade deals with the US and the EU will be off the table, UK citizens and businesses will be less free, the government will be dependent on the goodwill of third parties to keep all kinds of things we currently take for granted functioning in a recognisable way. So what is the plan? Hope that something turns up?
Boris remains PM - that is the entire plan...
Yes, that seems to be it. Johnson's only interest is himself. When his fall comes - as it undoubtedly will - it is going to be spectacular. It's a shame that the country will suffer such damage while we wait, though.
Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read. We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
We need something rather closer to home, on that view. A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.
As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in: Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written. Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens. I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
Because then no-one will want to bring their money here. And the super-rich will skidaddle. Yay! chers the Left.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Why does Labour hate the NHS so much?
If the only way we can fund public services is by feeding off crumbs from the super-rich the whole system needs reformed.
Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
Is that true? I vaguely thought most tax was raised from the majority in the middle income bands.
Depending how you define the top 1%, I'd imagine it could be true by definition. Whether these 1% top tax payers are the same as the non-doms using the country as a tax shelter in order not to pay tax is a separate question.
Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read. We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
We need something rather closer to home, on that view. A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.
As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in: Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written. Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens. I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
Because then no-one will want to bring their money here. And the super-rich will skidaddle. Yay! chers the Left.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Why does Labour hate the NHS so much?
If the only way we can fund public services is by feeding off crumbs from the super-rich the whole system needs reformed.
Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
Is that true? I vaguely thought most tax was raised from the majority in the middle income bands.
@MarqueeMark's assertion is, of course, utter bollocks.
1) Have the people who were making claims about hedge funds profiting from No Deal publicly supported Boris proposal ? Because if there is a Deal agreed wont those hedge funds then make equivalent losses ?
As I pointed out below, it's little or nothing to do with profiting from currency speculation (though no doubt the last year or so may have offered profitable opportunities) - rather the desire any forthcoming EU regulatory oversight.
That might be so but it assumes that the UK never gets a government committed to greater regulation of 'big finance'.
For example a Corbyn government following a painful No Deal Brexit is unlikely to the hedge funds friend.
Continent-wide regulation the only way, because, as another poster ably points out, it's easy for capital to float above the level of nation states and minimise its tax burden. Harder is for it to float above continent-wide regulatory zones. Simply put, countries have less power than continents. And fundamentally we need to have resource management under democratic control, otherwise wealth inequality is totally unleashed and very dark outcomes lie ahead. That's not an argument for persistent state interference with the day-to-day running of things business -- we really shouldn't throw capitalism out because it works -- but it is an argument for unions of countries to counterbalance the overweaning power of vast capital accumulations.
Who counterbalances the overweaning power of vast continental bureaucracies ?
Parliamentary democracy.
That's a failure then at the EU level.
The EU could do with more of that, yes. But it is there.
After 40+ years (in the case of the UK) what's the best example of a European demos ?
Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read. We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
We need something rather closer to home, on that view. A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.
As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in: Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written. Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens. I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
Because then no-one will want to bring their money here. And the super-rich will skidaddle. Yay! chers the Left.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Why does Labour hate the NHS so much?
If the only way we can fund public services is by feeding off crumbs from the super-rich the whole system needs reformed.
Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
Is that true? I vaguely thought most tax was raised from the majority in the middle income bands.
The top 1% pay 27% of all income tax...... Don't know the number on VAT, but buying a single Ferrari probably raises more than a whole street full in Hartlepool or Stoke does in a year.
Interesting. Didn't know that. I would have guessed a much smaller number. Good point re Vat as well.
Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read. We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
We need something rather closer to home, on that view. A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.
As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in: Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written. Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens. I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
Because then no-one will want to bring their money here. And the super-rich will skidaddle. Yay! chers the Left.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Why does Labour hate the NHS so much?
If the only way we can fund public services is by feeding off crumbs from the super-rich the whole system needs reformed.
Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
Is that true? I vaguely thought most tax was raised from the majority in the middle income bands.
@MarqueeMark's assertion is, of course, utter bollocks.
The top 1% of those paying income tax pay 27% of al income tax. Disprove - or apologise.
The DUP has been accused by its political rivals in Northern Ireland of breaching its famous "blood red lines" on Brexit after it signed up to Boris Johnson's new proposal for the Irish border, The Telegraph's James Rothwell reports.
Ulster Unionist leader Robin Swann said the DUP's decision to back a plan that included a border in the Irish Sea was a "u-turn" that "represents a road to Damascus conversion". And Traditional Unionist Voice leader Jim Allister said the DUP's red line is "not just blurred, it's gone".
I have a sneaking suspicion that this has been set up so that Arlene and Leo get to call themselves the heroic statespeople that worked for an historic compromise.
Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.
Why don't you just wait and see what happens? These straw clutching assertions are silly.
I will wait and see. But Johnson has to walk away because he is the one with the deadline.
I think that you will find that you have misjudged the UK public on this one. Apart from hardline Remainers and the predictable reaction of the likes of Swinson and Corbyn, there is I think a mood that the country needs to get something over the line now, and that for now this will do. Johnson has clearly compromised and yet remarkably appears to hold outl back Johnson's plan if the EU does. So the EU can't this time offload the blame for rejection onto the UK parliament, they will have to carry the can themselves.
If the EU do reject it, the reaction here against their unreasonable position will help Johnson as he seeks to appeal to the country in a GE.
The EU will not reject it. That is my point.
However, I agree that Johnson will get public support. That seems to be the likeliest outcome. We will No Deal and the Tories will get their majority. And then what? Trade deals with the US and the EU will be off the table, UK citizens and businesses will be less free, the government will be dependent on the goodwill of third parties to keep all kinds of things we currently take for granted functioning in a recognisable way. So what is the plan? Hope that something turns up?
Boris remains PM - that is the entire plan...
It’s a great plan when you consider the alternatives.
I’m not convinced the EU will turn this down - the economic gloom is gathering.
There is no other agency bar Boris in the Uk that can get a deal done and pass it in Parliament - best case election result for the EU is back at these numbers - so negotiate hard and everyone move on would seem to best for both sides.
Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read. We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
We need something rather closer to home, on that view. A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.
As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in: Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written. Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens. I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
Because then no-one will want to bring their money here. And the super-rich will skidaddle. Yay! chers the Left.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Why does Labour hate the NHS so much?
If the only way we can fund public services is by feeding off crumbs from the super-rich the whole system needs reformed.
Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
Is that true? I vaguely thought most tax was raised from the majority in the middle income bands.
@MarqueeMark's assertion is, of course, utter bollocks.
The DUP has been accused by its political rivals in Northern Ireland of breaching its famous "blood red lines" on Brexit after it signed up to Boris Johnson's new proposal for the Irish border, The Telegraph's James Rothwell reports.
Ulster Unionist leader Robin Swann said the DUP's decision to back a plan that included a border in the Irish Sea was a "u-turn" that "represents a road to Damascus conversion". And Traditional Unionist Voice leader Jim Allister said the DUP's red line is "not just blurred, it's gone".
I have a sneaking suspicion that this has been set up so that Arlene and Leo get to call themselves the heroic statespeople that worked for an historic compromise.
I once read on PB from a poster in NI, that in NI politics for anything to progress both sides had to be seen to lose. I think this is a good case of this, both Unionists and Nationalists are seen to lose with the Boris deal.
The DUP has been accused by its political rivals in Northern Ireland of breaching its famous "blood red lines" on Brexit after it signed up to Boris Johnson's new proposal for the Irish border, The Telegraph's James Rothwell reports.
Ulster Unionist leader Robin Swann said the DUP's decision to back a plan that included a border in the Irish Sea was a "u-turn" that "represents a road to Damascus conversion". And Traditional Unionist Voice leader Jim Allister said the DUP's red line is "not just blurred, it's gone".
I have a sneaking suspicion that this has been set up so that Arlene and Leo get to call themselves the heroic statespeople that worked for an historic compromise.
I have a sneaking suspicion that like every other politician, including those who have spent the past 20 or 30 years campaigning for Brexit, the DUP hadn't given the question a moment's thought until Theresa May phoned them up in June 2017.
I think that you will find that you have misjudged the UK public on this one. Apart from hardline Remainers and the predictable reaction of the likes of Swinson and Corbyn, there is I think a mood that the country needs to get something over the line now, and that for now this will do. Johnson has clearly compromised and yet remarkably appears to hold out the prospect of assembling a coalition of MPs sufficient to get this through in parliament if the EU says yes. So that means that if the EU resorts to just the same tired mantras as ever to back the intransigence it has shown from day one to May and now Johnson, there will be a hardening of attitudes towards the EU and an acceptance by most that they are to blame. Enough MPs are saying that they will back Johnson's plan if the EU does. So the EU can't this time offload the blame for rejection onto the UK parliament, they will have to carry the can themselves.
If the EU do reject it, the reaction here against their unreasonable position will help Johnson as he seeks to appeal to the country in a GE.
The EU will not reject it. That is my point.
However, I agree that Johnson will get public support. That seems to be the likeliest outcome. We will No Deal and the Tories will get their majority. And then what? Trade deals with the US and the EU will be off the table, UK citizens and businesses will be less free, the government will be dependent on the goodwill of third parties to keep all kinds of things we currently take for granted functioning in a recognisable way. So what is the plan? Hope that something turns up?
OK, I understand what you are saying.
Leaving aside the question of the UK's prospects after leaving, it is an understatement to say that it is not yet nailed on that we either No Deal or end up with Johnson getting a majority. He could quite possibly lose a GE after we extend. At the moment they are hoping that the Conservatives lose the GE and the UK eventually revokes A50, before or after another referendum, and the prospect of that is not sufficiently distant for them to cave in. That said, they will be following the latest polls with interest.
If Johnson gets a majority after we have an extension without Johnson's deal being agreed, No Deal becomes pretty well certain if a deal is not done, but paradoxically the prospect of No Deal recedes because it forces the EU into a choice between one or the other. I would expect them to be more accommodating than they are being now.
Even if the UK leaves without a deal, the EU won't want to be left without any sort of trade agreement with us for the longer term, and Varadkhar will end up looking like an absolute pillock in the meantime. So more negotiations would be inevitable, and I would again expect the EU be more accommodating at that point.
We need something rather closer to home, on that view. A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.
As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in: Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written. Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens. I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
Because then no-one will want to bring their money here. And the super-rich will skidaddle. Yay! chers the Left.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Why does Labour hate the NHS so much?
If the only way we can fund public services is by feeding off crumbs from the super-rich the whole system needs reformed.
Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
Is that true? I vaguely thought most tax was raised from the majority in the middle income bands.
@MarqueeMark's assertion is, of course, utter bollocks.
The top 1% of those paying income tax pay 27% of al income tax. Disprove - or apologise.
Top 1% of income tax payers pay 27-28% of all income taxes.
The top 1% pay 27% of all income tax...... Don't know the number on VAT, but buying a single Ferrari probably raises more than a whole street full in Hartlepool or Stoke does in a year.
Out of interest, how much wealth and income is held/earned by those same people? Because if it's, say, 30%, they aren't paying their way.
To simplify: I have 90, you have 10 I pay 2 in tax, you pay 1. Therefore I'm paying 67% of the tax take, but I have 90% of the wealth/income.
And before you point out income tax is progressive, two points. VAT, which you brought up, is regressive. And wealth is also a factor which is not covered by income tax. Add into the mix capital accumulation whilst you're there. All of a sudden your Taxdodgers' Alliance figure of 27% starts to look a little bare.
Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read. We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
We need something rather closer to home, on that view. A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.
As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in: Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written. Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens. I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
Because then no-one will want to bring their money here. And the super-rich will skidaddle. Yay! chers the Left.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Why does Labour hate the NHS so much?
If the only way we can fund public services is by feeding off crumbs from the super-rich the whole system needs reformed.
Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
Is that true? I vaguely thought most tax was raised from the majority in the middle income bands.
@MarqueeMark's assertion is, of course, utter bollocks.
The top 1% of those paying income tax pay 27% of al income tax. Disprove - or apologise.
That's correct, but...
27% of income tax = £52.8bn Cost of NHS = £162bn
The top 1% of income tax payers contribute about 6.2% of total public spending.
Interesting and persuasive piece. Is this not exactly what Blair did?
Interesting perhaps. Not sure about persuasive as it doesnt have any solutions. How do you stop a politicians son or daughter from starting a hedge fund or joining a private companys board? Open to ideas but seems impractical to me.
The top 1% pay 27% of all income tax...... Don't know the number on VAT, but buying a single Ferrari probably raises more than a whole street full in Hartlepool or Stoke does in a year.
Out of interest, how much wealth and income is held/earned by those same people? Because if it's, say, 30%, they aren't paying their way.
To simplify: I have 90, you have 10 I pay 2 in tax, you pay 1. Therefore I'm paying 67% of the tax take, but I have 90% of the wealth/income.
And before you point out income tax is progressive, two points. VAT, which you brought up, is regressive. And wealth is also a factor which is not covered by income tax. Add into the mix capital accumulation whilst you're there. All of a sudden your Taxdodgers' Alliance figure of 27% starts to look a little bare.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
I wonder if behind the scenes, at least one country is now firmly saying "No more extensions." So the EU has an interesting balancing act - to ensure that they are not responsible for No Deal on 1st November. Taking at least some of what Boris has proposed is the safest route to ensure this. But that requires Ireland to play ball/STFU......
Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read. We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
We need something rather closer to home, on that view. A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.
As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in: Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written. Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens. I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
Because then no-one will want to bring their money here. And the super-rich will skidaddle. Yay! chers the Left.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Why does Labour hate the NHS so much?
If the only way we can fund public services is by feeding off crumbs from the super-rich the whole system needs reformed.
Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
Is that true? I vaguely thought most tax was raised from the majority in the middle income bands.
@MarqueeMark's assertion is, of course, utter bollocks.
Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.
Why don't you just wait and see what happens? These straw clutching assertions are silly.
I will wait and see. But Johnson has to walk away because he is the one with the deadline.
I think that you will find that you have misjudged the UK public on this one. Apart from hardline Remainers and the predictable reaction of the likes of Swinson and Corbyn, there is I think a mood that the country needs to get something over the line now, and that for now this will do. Johnson has clearly compromised and yet remarkably appears to hold outl back Johnson's plan if the EU does. So the EU can't this time offload the blame for rejection onto the UK parliament, they will have to carry the can themselves.
If the EU do reject it, the reaction here against their unreasonable position will help Johnson as he seeks to appeal to the country in a GE.
The EU will not reject it. That is my point.
However, I agree that Johnson will get public support. That seems to be the likeliest outcome. We will No Deal and the Tories will get their majority. And then what? Trade deals with the US and the EU will be off the table, UK citizens and businesses will be less free, the government will be dependent on the goodwill of third parties to keep all kinds of things we currently take for granted functioning in a recognisable way. So what is the plan? Hope that something turns up?
Boris remains PM - that is the entire plan...
It’s a great plan when you consider the alternatives.
I’m not convinced the EU will turn this down - the economic gloom is gathering.
There is no other agency bar Boris in the Uk that can get a deal done and pass it in Parliament - best case election result for the EU is back at these numbers - so negotiate hard and everyone move on would seem to best for both sides.
If Boris wins a majority at an election it's quite plausible Boris could demand a harder Brexit than this. The threat of no deal could be much higher in the next Parliament than this one.
Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.
Why don't you just wait and see what happens? These straw clutching assertions are silly.
I will wait and see. But Johnson has to walk away because he is the one with the deadline.
I think that you will find that you have misjudged the UK public on this one. Apart from hardline Remainers and the predictable reaction of the likes of Swinson and Corbyn, there is I think a mood that the country needs to get something over the line now, and that for now this will do. Johnson has clearly compromised and yet remarkably appears to hold out the prospect of assembling a coalition of MPs sufficient to get this through in parliament if the EU says yes. So that means that if the EU resorts to just the same tired mantras as ever to back the intransigence it has shown from day one to May and now Johnson, there will be a hardening of attitudes towards the EU and an acceptance by most that they are to blame. Enough MPs are saying that they will back Johnson's plan if the EU does. So the EU can't this time offload the blame for rejection onto the UK parliament, they will have to carry the can themselves.
If the EU do reject it, the reaction here against their unreasonable position will help Johnson as he seeks to appeal to the country in a GE.
The EU are not the problem. There's a large potential range of deals that the EU will accept. They may or may not accept Boris's fudge but it doesn't matter. Even more than May, Johnson has made the mistake of crafting a WA that is specifically designed to be approved by Tory and DUP MPs. And there are only about 290 of them left.
We need something rather closer to home, on that view. A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.
As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in: Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written. Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens. I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
Because then no-one will want to bring their money here. And the super-rich will skidaddle. Yay! chers the Left.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Why does Labour hate the NHS so much?
If the only way we can fund public services is by feeding off crumbs from the super-rich the whole system needs reformed.
Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
Is that true? I vaguely thought most tax was raised from the majority in the middle income bands.
@MarqueeMark's assertion is, of course, utter bollocks.
The top 1% of those paying income tax pay 27% of al income tax. Disprove - or apologise.
Top 1% of income tax payers pay 27-28% of all income taxes.
Markedly more than when Labour were "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes".......
Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read. We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
: Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written. Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens. I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
Because then no-one will want to bring their money here. And the super-rich will skidaddle. Yay! chers the Left.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Why does Labour hate the NHS so much?
If the only way we can fund public services is by feeding off crumbs from the super-rich the whole system needs reformed.
Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
Is that true? I vaguely thought most tax was raised from the majority in the middle income bands.
@MarqueeMark's assertion is, of course, utter bollocks.
The top 1% of those paying income tax pay 27% of al income tax. Disprove - or apologise.
That's correct, but...
27% of income tax = £52.8bn Cost of NHS = £162bn
The top 1% of income tax payers contribute about 6.2% of total public spending.
You're a total blagger. Are you saying that the top 1% of income tax payers don't pay any VAT, stamp duty, air duty, inheritance tax or capital gains? Yet alone an outsized amount versus the average?
The top 1% pay 27% of all income tax...... Don't know the number on VAT, but buying a single Ferrari probably raises more than a whole street full in Hartlepool or Stoke does in a year.
Out of interest, how much wealth and income is held/earned by those same people? Because if it's, say, 30%, they aren't paying their way.
To simplify: I have 90, you have 10 I pay 2 in tax, you pay 1. Therefore I'm paying 67% of the tax take, but I have 90% of the wealth/income.
And before you point out income tax is progressive, two points. VAT, which you brought up, is regressive. And wealth is also a factor which is not covered by income tax. Add into the mix capital accumulation whilst you're there. All of a sudden your Taxdodgers' Alliance figure of 27% starts to look a little bare.
I think tthey will have to carry the can themselves.
If the EU do reject it, the reaction here against their unreasonable position will help Johnson as he seeks to appeal to the country in a GE.
The EU will not reject it. That is my point.
However, I agree that Johnson will get public support. That seems to be the likeliest outcome. We will No Deal and the Tories will get their majority. And then what? Trade deals with the US and the EU will be off the table, UK citizens and businesses will be less free, the government will be dependent on the goodwill of third parties to keep all kinds of things we currently take for granted functioning in a recognisable way. So what is the plan? Hope that something turns up?
OK, I understand what you are saying.
Leaving aside the question of the UK's prospects after leaving, it is an understatement to say that it is not yet nailed on that we either No Deal or end up with Johnson getting a majority. He could quite possibly lose a GE after we extend. At the moment they are hoping that the Conservatives lose the GE and the UK eventually revokes A50, before or after another referendum, and the prospect of that is not sufficiently distant for them to cave in. That said, they will be following the latest polls with interest.
If Johnson gets a majority after we have an extension without Johnson's deal being agreed, No Deal becomes pretty well certain if a deal is not done, but paradoxically the prospect of No Deal recedes because it forces the EU into a choice between one or the other. I would expect them to be more accommodating than they are being now.
Even if the UK leaves without a deal, the EU won't want to be left without any sort of trade agreement with us for the longer term, and Varadkhar will end up looking like an absolute pillock in the meantime. So more negotiations would be inevitable, and I would again expect the EU be more accommodating at that point.
We have been told for three years that the EU is about to crumble. It hasn't happened. German car manufacturers have not ridden to the rescue, neither have Italian prosecco producers. It seems to me that the likeliest outcome from here is No Deal. It would be nice to think that the government has a plan to get us through what could be a very long-term state of affairs. Given we apparently voted for No Deal, it should deliver us the sunlit uplands and all the benefits of EU membership without EU membership that we were promised. My problem, I guess, is that I don't see how that is possible. What am I missing?
1) Have the people who were making claims about hedge funds profiting from No Deal publicly supported Boris proposal ? Because if there is a Deal agreed wont those hedge funds then make equivalent losses ?
As I pointed out below, it's little or nothing to do with profiting from currency speculation (though no doubt the last year or so may have offered profitable opportunities) - rather the desire any forthcoming EU regulatory oversight.
That might be so but it assumes that the UK never gets a government committed to greater regulation of 'big finance'.
For example a Corbyn government following a painful No Deal Brexit is unlikely to the hedge funds friend.
Continent-wide regulation the only way, because, as another poster ably points out, it's easy for capital to float above the level of nation states and minimise its tax burden. Harder is for it to float above continent-wide regulatory zones. Simply put, countries have less power than continents. And fundamentally we need to have resource management under democratic control, otherwise wealth inequality is totally unleashed and very dark outcomes lie ahead. That's not an argument for persistent state interference with the day-to-day running of things business -- we really shouldn't throw capitalism out because it works -- but it is an argument for unions of countries to counterbalance the overweaning power of vast capital accumulations.
No it isn't.
When theory meets reality there is only one winner. The continental power is limited by the conflict between the weakest link and the prime need for political compromise to retain the essential homogony.
I you think about it, in theory in theory and in practice should be the same, but in practice they aren't.
If the EU do reject it, the reaction here against their unreasonable position will help Johnson as he seeks to appeal to the country in a GE.
The EU will not reject it. That is my point.
However, I agree that Johnson will get public support. That seems to be the likeliest outcome. We will No Deal and the Tories will get their majority. And then what? Trade deals with the US and the EU will be off the table, UK citizens and businesses will be less free, the government will be dependent on the goodwill of third parties to keep all kinds of things we currently take for granted functioning in a recognisable way. So what is the plan? Hope that something turns up?
OK, I understand what you are saying.
Leaving aside the question of the UK's prospects after leaving, it is an understatement to say that it is not yet nailed on that we either No Deal or end up with Johnson getting a majority. He could quite possibly lose a GE after we extend. At the moment they are hoping that the Conservatives lose the GE and the UK eventually revokes A50, before or after another referendum, and the prospect of that is not sufficiently distant for them to cave in. That said, they will be following the latest polls with interest.
If Johnson gets a majority after we have an extension without Johnson's deal being agreed, No Deal becomes pretty well certain if a deal is not done, but paradoxically the prospect of No Deal recedes because it forces the EU into a choice between one or the other. I would expect them to be more accommodating than they are being now.
Even if the UK leaves without a deal, the EU won't want to be left without any sort of trade agreement with us for the longer term, and Varadkhar will end up looking like an absolute pillock in the meantime. So more negotiations would be inevitable, and I would again expect the EU be more accommodating at that point.
I agree the EU will be more accommodating to any UK govt that can demonstrate a majority in parliament. They are probably willing to do one last concession but dont want to waste it if it is unlikely to pass in parliament.
I disagree they will be more accommadating post no-deal. Not because they dont want to, but because we would need sign off from 28 national parliaments plus several regional parliaments, not just the heads of state. That will bring into play all sorts of sectional interests with minor politicians looking to make a name for themselves with their own electorates. It will be a quagmire.
If Boris wins a majority at an election it's quite plausible Boris could demand a harder Brexit than this. The threat of no deal could be much higher in the next Parliament than this one.
If there is no further extension by the EU, there can be no election before 31st October. It gets resolved. End of.
1) Have the people who were making claims about hedge funds profiting from No Deal publicly supported Boris proposal ? Because if there is a Deal agreed wont those hedge funds then make equivalent losses ?
As I pointed out below, it's little or nothing to do with profiting from currency speculation (though no doubt the last year or so may have offered profitable opportunities) - rather the desire any forthcoming EU regulatory oversight.
That might be so but it assumes that the UK never gets a government committed to greater regulation of 'big finance'.
For example a Corbyn government following a painful No Deal Brexit is unlikely to the hedge funds friend.
Continent-wide regulation the only way, because, as another poster ably points out, it's easy for capital to float above the level of nation states and minimise its tax burden. Harder is for it to float above continent-wide regulatory zones. Simply put, countries have less power than continents. And fundamentally we need to have resource management under democratic control, otherwise wealth inequality is totally unleashed and very dark outcomes lie ahead. That's not an argument for persistent state interference with the day-to-day running of things business -- we really shouldn't throw capitalism out because it works -- but it is an argument for unions of countries to counterbalance the overweaning power of vast capital accumulations.
No it isn't.
When theory meets reality there is only one winner. The continental power is limited by the conflict between the weakest link and the prime need for political compromise to retain the essential homogony.
I you think about it, in theory in theory and in practice should be the same, but in practice they aren't.
The answer is either 42 or human input is unpredictable and fails to conform to the theory in practice or in theory.
The top 1% pay 27% of all income tax...... Don't know the number on VAT, but buying a single Ferrari probably raises more than a whole street full in Hartlepool or Stoke does in a year.
Out of interest, how much wealth and income is held/earned by those same people? Because if it's, say, 30%, they aren't paying their way.
To simplify: I have 90, you have 10 I pay 2 in tax, you pay 1. Therefore I'm paying 67% of the tax take, but I have 90% of the wealth/income.
And before you point out income tax is progressive, two points. VAT, which you brought up, is regressive. And wealth is also a factor which is not covered by income tax. Add into the mix capital accumulation whilst you're there. All of a sudden your Taxdodgers' Alliance figure of 27% starts to look a little bare.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
I didn't say it's incorrect, I said it's bare. It's a cherry picked statistic without the slightest sense of its wider meaning. If you have huge levels of inequality, of course the highest income and highest wealth individuals will be paying a huge measure of the tax take. That is not a good thing. Better would be for a more even distribution of income and wealth and a concomitant more even distribution of the tax burden. The reasons are threefold: - it reduces the economic-political power of the elites, enhancing democracy - it creates a network effect that cushions against system failure that can come from sectoral collapses within the economy: fewer nodes means higher risk. - it enhances the benefits of consumerist capitalism, which is driven by consumers making free choices with disposable income. That's how the market works. If you condemn 50% of the population into near-subsistence, those people are not sending efficient signals into the market, meaning quality, variety and innovation suffer.
Large inequality is bad for the economy, and cherry picked figures like the 27% are used exclusively to justify the present level of inequality.
Truth is, I don't think the problem even lies at the 1%. I think it's more like the 0.5% or 0.1% level. But in order to make a rational determination on that, you need more than just the single, dumb banner of "27%", which really doesn't help us understand the situation.
Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.
Why don't you just wait and see what happens? These straw clutching assertions are silly.
I will wait and see. But Johnson has to walk away because he is the one with the deadline.
elp Johnson as he seeks to appeal to the country in a GE.
The EU will not reject it. That is my point.
However, I agree that Johnson will get public support. That seems to be the likeliest outcome. We will No Deal and the Tories will get their majority. And then what? Trade deals with the US and the EU will be off the table, UK citizens and businesses will be less free, the government will be dependent on the goodwill of third parties to keep all kinds of things we currently take for granted functioning in a recognisable way. So what is the plan? Hope that something turns up?
Boris remains PM - that is the entire plan...
It’s a great plan when you consider the alternatives.
I’m not convinced the EU will turn this down - the economic gloom is gathering.
There is no other agency bar Boris in the Uk that can get a deal done and pass it in Parliament - best case election result for the EU is back at these numbers - so negotiate hard and everyone move on would seem to best for both sides.
If Boris wins a majority at an election it's quite plausible Boris could demand a harder Brexit than this. The threat of no deal could be much higher in the next Parliament than this one.
What has been overlooked in all the 2 borders discussion is that in the letter that Boris wrote he stated that this Govts aim is at the end of the transition to have just an FTA with no customs union or regulatory equivalence with the EU.
The top 1% pay 27% of all income tax...... Don't know the number on VAT, but buying a single Ferrari probably raises more than a whole street full in Hartlepool or Stoke does in a year.
Out of interest, how much wealth and income is held/earned by those same people? Because if it's, say, 30%, they aren't paying their way.
To simplify: I have 90, you have 10 I pay 2 in tax, you pay 1. Therefore I'm paying 67% of the tax take, but I have 90% of the wealth/income.
And before you point out income tax is progressive, two points. VAT, which you brought up, is regressive. And wealth is also a factor which is not covered by income tax. Add into the mix capital accumulation whilst you're there. All of a sudden your Taxdodgers' Alliance figure of 27% starts to look a little bare.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
I didn't say it's incorrect, I said it's bare. It's a cherry picked statistic without the slightest sense of its wider meaning. If you have huge levels of inequality, of course the highest income and highest wealth individuals will be paying a huge measure of the tax take. That is not a good thing. Better would be for a more even distribution of income and wealth and a concomitant more even distribution of the tax burden. The reasons are threefold: - it reduces the economic-political power of the elites, enhancing democracy - it creates a network effect that cushions against system failure that can come from sectoral collapses within the economy: fewer nodes means higher risk. - it enhances the benefits of consumerist capitalism, which is driven by consumers making free choices with disposable income. That's how the market works. If you condemn 50% of the population into near-subsistence, those people are not sending efficient signals into the market, meaning quality, variety and innovation suffer.
Large inequality is bad for the economy, and cherry picked figures like the 27% are used exclusively to justify the present level of inequality.
Truth is, I don't think the problem even lies at the 1%. I think it's more like the 0.5% or 0.1% level. But in order to make a rational determination on that, you need more than just the single, dumb banner of "27%", which really doesn't help us understand the situation.
Your objectives are not helped by questioning whether the tax system is regressive because of VAT, or calling a valid figure part of the tax dodgers alliance.
I would be in favour of aggressively closing loopholes that help the very rich and also a Warren style billionaire tax.
Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.
Why don't you just wait and see what happens? These straw clutching assertions are silly.
I will wait and see. But Johnson has to walk away because he is the one with the deadline.
elp Johnson as he seeks to appeal to the country in a GE.
The EU will not reject it. That is my point.
However, I agree that Johnson will get public support. That seems to be the likeliest outcome. We will No Deal and the Tories will get their majority. And then what? Trade deals with the US and the EU will be off the table, UK citizens and businesses will be less free, the government will be dependent on the goodwill of third parties to keep all kinds of things we currently take for granted functioning in a recognisable way. So what is the plan? Hope that something turns up?
Boris remains PM - that is the entire plan...
It’s a great plan when you consider the alternatives.
I’m not convinced the EU will turn this down - the economic gloom is gathering.
There is no other agency bar Boris in the Uk that can get a deal done and pass it in Parliament - best case election result for the EU is back at these numbers - so negotiate hard and everyone move on would seem to best for both sides.
If Boris wins a majority at an election it's quite plausible Boris could demand a harder Brexit than this. The threat of no deal could be much higher in the next Parliament than this one.
What has been overlooked in all the 2 borders discussion is that in the letter that Boris wrote he stated that this Govts aim is at the end of the transition to have just an FTA with no customs union or regulatory equivalence with the EU.
He wants regulatory equivalence, what he doesn't want is regulatory alignment. 'Canada' rather than 'Norway'
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
We need something rather closer to home, on that view. A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.
As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in: Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written. Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens. I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
Because then no-one will want to bring their money here. And the super-rich will skidaddle. Yay! chers the Left.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Why does Labour hate the NHS so much?
If the only way we can fund public services is by feeding off crumbs from the super-rich the whole system needs reformed.
Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
Is that true? I vaguely thought most tax was raised from the majority in the middle income bands.
@MarqueeMark's assertion is, of course, utter bollocks.
The top 1% of those paying income tax pay 27% of al income tax. Disprove - or apologise.
Top 1% of income tax payers pay 27-28% of all income taxes.
To the man on what was (before it became a trendy area) the Clapham omnibus it really is a pretty dire introduction. Would that environmentally responsible Clapham omnibus traveller think 'that can only come from a smug holier than thou PC hypocritical woke metropolitan elitist intent on enhancing their credentials to like minded blinkered FBPE'
I really don't see how this helps the anti Johnson movement one iota.
Your objectives are not helped by questioning whether the tax system is regressive because of VAT, or calling a valid figure part of the tax dodgers alliance.
I would be in favour of aggressively closing loopholes that help the very rich and also a Warren style billionaire tax.
I did not say the "tax system" is regressive. I said income tax is progressive and VAT is regressive. I stand by my taxdodgers' alliance comment as a piece of political rhetoric because the use of the 27% percent figure alone is itself a common piece of political rhetoric. It's a figure that's used to silence rather than illuminate, and it deserves to be dismissed until such a time that the person who uses it is willing to engage with the wider and significantly more complex nature of wealth and income distributions and what constitutes fairness and efficiency within that.
To put it simply, if you see "27%" or "Laffer curve" in total isolation, that person can cram it up their hoop.
The main issue for the remain side is that there is no way that getting rid of the Conservative government leaves no alternative leader for them. Mr. Corbyn as interim PM is unacceptable to the LibDems as this would cement in voters minds the possibility of him as PM and Labour as the alternative government. Equivalently Labour cannot afford Mr. Corbyn to be sidelined as this would leave voters to question why the LotO is not PM. Whatever people believe regarding the importance of halting Brexit, the fact remains that the real battle in the HoC is for the party that will be the alternative anti-Conservative Party in the next GE. Both of those parties see it as a fight to the death. Neither can afford to back down.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
The Treasury did a lot of work on income Laffer curves in 2010 and 2011, before reducing the 52% rate to 47% (inc the 2% NI). - and seeing income tax receipts go up as a result.
It turns out that 50% is a hugely symbolic number, that has a lot of people reaching for an accountant's phone number.
Further down the income scale, there's also evidence that the effective 65% rate due to personal allowance withdrawal at 100k income is causing people to avoid that income bracket, either by doing less work or increasing pension contributions. Think doctors, lawyers, pilots etc turning down that extra shift or extra customer, as the marginal gain is so small.
Personal anecdata - in a previous job I stopped working overtime when I hit the 40% bracket, simply decided that it wasn't worth working nights and weekends for the net rate offered.
Comments
It makes more sense to remain in the EU. Leaving it to stay in the customs union is crackers.
Stopping family members from having jobs seems absurd and inequitable for them, they may not even get along with their politician relative. Part of society is and has always been cronyism, it is not pretty or fair but not sure its indirect form can be stopped.
I, and I presume wise punters, want more objective data.
Theoretically, The Clown’s arrival and #RuthForFM’s departure could be *good* news for the Scons. I am tired of the universal(?) assumption that all is tickety boo.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/trump-wants-raise-cost-holding-him-account/599278/
Surprising that you didn't see that before asking.
But I'm not one of the people who have been making claims about government strategy being controlled by hedge funds.
I assume that you are at risk of disciplinary action if you publicly reject the authority of the College of Justice.
And the money we do take off them in various fees and duties and taxes will no longer be avaialble to fund the NHS.
Why does Labour hate the NHS so much?
An inspiration to the grey haired spectacle wearers everywhere.
Doesn't matter if it's crackers or not. Many Remainers think that leaving the EU at all is crackers.
We're way beyond the point where something being contrary to reason is a sticking point. No outcome from here is going to leave us better off, or result in anything other than a worse position from where we started.
As has been pointed out almost ad infinitum, No Deal is contrary to the referendum campaign, but that doesn't stop people from advocating it, either. "The ballot paper said 'Leave'; this is leave."
Customs Union fits the requirement of minimum disruption and fulfils the exact question given on the ballot paper as well. As valid an outcome as any, and with less hassle.
For example a Corbyn government following a painful No Deal Brexit is unlikely to the hedge funds friend.
Yes, I quite like Warren. She has some real energy and is building momentum. Apart from Biden or Sanders, and the weird hippie, pretty much all the Democrat candidates are appointable.
I have backed her as Dem candidate at 20 some months back and pretty comfortable with that. I haven't backed her so much as POTUS, but think that reasonable value at 3.85.
Shades of losing the World Cup in 1970, which may have cost Labour the election that year.
Simply put, countries have less power than continents. And fundamentally we need to have resource management under democratic control, otherwise wealth inequality is totally unleashed and very dark outcomes lie ahead. That's not an argument for persistent state interference with the day-to-day running of things business -- we really shouldn't throw capitalism out because it works -- but it is an argument for unions of countries to counterbalance the overweaning power of vast capital accumulations.
However, I agree that Johnson will get public support. That seems to be the likeliest outcome. We will No Deal and the Tories will get their majority. And then what? Trade deals with the US and the EU will be off the table, UK citizens and businesses will be less free, the government will be dependent on the goodwill of third parties to keep all kinds of things we currently take for granted functioning in a recognisable way. So what is the plan? Hope that something turns up?
From a personal point of view I have an interest in a case going in front of the ECJ. It is a German case so will go ahead anyway, but has implications here. Not sure what happens with that if we leave. Transition period implications? The Govt will be keen to ignore the result if the case is successful.
If we leave with a deal what does that mean for the parties:
Brexit party becomes the Not Really Brexited party and gets a boost?
Tories lose voters to Brexit party but gain back some/lots of the 21 supporters?
LDs become the rejoiners, which I don't think has the same impact as revokers?
Lab I assume are unchanged as they couldn't decide if they were remainers or leavers anyway and I guess many will feel we have done neither so best to move on and leave well alone.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
When theory meets reality there is only one winner.
The continental power is limited by the conflict between the weakest link and the prime need for political compromise to retain the essential homogony.
The more you rely on fewer nodes, the greater the chance of system failure.
It's just another variation on right wing gaslighting - 'How dare you call me a Nazi just cos I have swastika tatoos and like to rip out the odd Hitlergruß, YOU'RE THE REAL NAZI!!'
The Ryder Cup team.
Which has nothing to do with the EU.
The DUP has been accused by its political rivals in Northern Ireland of breaching its famous "blood red lines" on Brexit after it signed up to Boris Johnson's new proposal for the Irish border, The Telegraph's James Rothwell reports.
Ulster Unionist leader Robin Swann said the DUP's decision to back a plan that included a border in the Irish Sea was a "u-turn" that "represents a road to Damascus conversion". And Traditional Unionist Voice leader Jim Allister said the DUP's red line is "not just blurred, it's gone".
I have a sneaking suspicion that this has been set up so that Arlene and Leo get to call themselves the heroic statespeople that worked for an historic compromise.
I’m not convinced the EU will turn this down - the economic gloom is gathering.
There is no other agency bar Boris in the Uk that can get a deal done and pass it in Parliament - best case election result for the EU is back at these numbers - so negotiate hard and everyone move on would seem to best for both sides.
Leaving aside the question of the UK's prospects after leaving, it is an understatement to say that it is not yet nailed on that we either No Deal or end up with Johnson getting a majority. He could quite possibly lose a GE after we extend. At the moment they are hoping that the Conservatives lose the GE and the UK eventually revokes A50, before or after another referendum, and the prospect of that is not sufficiently distant for them to cave in. That said, they will be following the latest polls with interest.
If Johnson gets a majority after we have an extension without Johnson's deal being agreed, No Deal becomes pretty well certain if a deal is not done, but paradoxically the prospect of No Deal recedes because it forces the EU into a choice between one or the other. I would expect them to be more accommodating than they are being now.
Even if the UK leaves without a deal, the EU won't want to be left without any sort of trade agreement with us for the longer term, and Varadkhar will end up looking like an absolute pillock in the meantime. So more negotiations would be inevitable, and I would again expect the EU be more accommodating at that point.
To simplify:
I have 90, you have 10
I pay 2 in tax, you pay 1.
Therefore I'm paying 67% of the tax take, but I have 90% of the wealth/income.
And before you point out income tax is progressive, two points. VAT, which you brought up, is regressive. And wealth is also a factor which is not covered by income tax. Add into the mix capital accumulation whilst you're there. All of a sudden your Taxdodgers' Alliance figure of 27% starts to look a little bare.
27% of income tax = £52.8bn
Cost of NHS = £162bn
The top 1% of income tax payers contribute about 6.2% of total public spending.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/812844/Income_Tax_Liabilities_Statistics_June_2019.pdf
https://www.ukpublicrevenue.co.uk
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk
(Beware though, they may not bear out your preconceptions.)
Are we about to see another vast wealth transfer to oldies and the public finances heading even further down the pan ?
I'm with you and Meeks on this one, but at least my mum (& fiancée's mum) will be due for a payout if the Gov't loses.
I disagree they will be more accommadating post no-deal. Not because they dont want to, but because we would need sign off from 28 national parliaments plus several regional parliaments, not just the heads of state. That will bring into play all sorts of sectional interests with minor politicians looking to make a name for themselves with their own electorates. It will be a quagmire.
If you have huge levels of inequality, of course the highest income and highest wealth individuals will be paying a huge measure of the tax take. That is not a good thing. Better would be for a more even distribution of income and wealth and a concomitant more even distribution of the tax burden.
The reasons are threefold:
- it reduces the economic-political power of the elites, enhancing democracy
- it creates a network effect that cushions against system failure that can come from sectoral collapses within the economy: fewer nodes means higher risk.
- it enhances the benefits of consumerist capitalism, which is driven by consumers making free choices with disposable income. That's how the market works. If you condemn 50% of the population into near-subsistence, those people are not sending efficient signals into the market, meaning quality, variety and innovation suffer.
Large inequality is bad for the economy, and cherry picked figures like the 27% are used exclusively to justify the present level of inequality.
Truth is, I don't think the problem even lies at the 1%. I think it's more like the 0.5% or 0.1% level. But in order to make a rational determination on that, you need more than just the single, dumb banner of "27%", which really doesn't help us understand the situation.
"We want equality!"
"Great, retire at the same age as men*."
"Not that much."
*That's arguably not really equality given women live longer and therefore have longer retirements. But there we are.
I would be in favour of aggressively closing loopholes that help the very rich and also a Warren style billionaire tax.
"Who gives a F***"
To the man on what was (before it became a trendy area) the Clapham omnibus it really is a pretty dire introduction. Would that environmentally responsible Clapham omnibus traveller think 'that can only come from a smug holier than thou PC hypocritical woke metropolitan elitist intent on enhancing their credentials to like minded blinkered FBPE'
I really don't see how this helps the anti Johnson movement one iota.
Also recommends to both Speakers that Dominic Cumming's parliamentary pass be revoked for contempt of parliament.
I stand by my taxdodgers' alliance comment as a piece of political rhetoric because the use of the 27% percent figure alone is itself a common piece of political rhetoric. It's a figure that's used to silence rather than illuminate, and it deserves to be dismissed until such a time that the person who uses it is willing to engage with the wider and significantly more complex nature of wealth and income distributions and what constitutes fairness and efficiency within that.
To put it simply, if you see "27%" or "Laffer curve" in total isolation, that person can cram it up their hoop.
Whatever people believe regarding the importance of halting Brexit, the fact remains that the real battle in the HoC is for the party that will be the alternative anti-Conservative Party in the next GE.
Both of those parties see it as a fight to the death. Neither can afford to back down.
It turns out that 50% is a hugely symbolic number, that has a lot of people reaching for an accountant's phone number.
Further down the income scale, there's also evidence that the effective 65% rate due to personal allowance withdrawal at 100k income is causing people to avoid that income bracket, either by doing less work or increasing pension contributions. Think doctors, lawyers, pilots etc turning down that extra shift or extra customer, as the marginal gain is so small.
Personal anecdata - in a previous job I stopped working overtime when I hit the 40% bracket, simply decided that it wasn't worth working nights and weekends for the net rate offered.