Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

New polling finds 44% prepared to pay more tax to cover costs of COVID19 – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 6 in General
New polling finds 44% prepared to pay more tax to cover costs of COVID19 – politicalbetting.com

New @IpsosMORI polling finds 44% of Brits say they are prepared to pay more taxes in the context of COVID-19 requiring high levels of government spending pic.twitter.com/2cWkSF7HZz

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,048
    I'm very happy for other people to pay more tax to pay for the cost of CV19
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862
    rcs1000 said:

    I'm very happy for other people to pay more tax to pay for the cost of CV19

    I already am, but that’s because HMRC buggered up my tax code.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,763
    There's edge cases like grannies living in Palladian mansions on income support, and hedge fund managers who spend every penny on cocaine and show girls, but on the whole asset rich and income rich correlate pretty spectacularly, so wealth vs income tax is just about the mechanics of collection. So why the enthusiasm for wealth? Is it meant to target a particularly loathsome type of rich person, or to deplete the parts which other taxes for some unexplained reason cannot reach?
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 963
    I suspect folks may be preparing to to pay more more tax, as opposed to prepared to.

    Wealth taxes will be particularly favoured because they seem bound to be paid by somebody else.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 5,714
    rcs1000 said:

    I'm very happy for other people to pay more tax to pay for the cost of CV19

    So said a large chunk of the 90% of those polled who would apparently be unaffected by the proposal. The only thing that surprises me is that the idea wasn't even more popular.

    The concept of spending rises for me, paid for by tax rises for somebody else, earns lots of likes. Who'd-a-thunk it?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862
    edited October 6
    IshmaelZ said:

    There's edge cases like grannies living in Palladian mansions on income support, and hedge fund managers who spend every penny on cocaine and show girls, but on the whole asset rich and income rich correlate pretty spectacularly, so wealth vs income tax is just about the mechanics of collection. So why the enthusiasm for wealth? Is it meant to target a particularly loathsome type of rich person, or to deplete the parts which other taxes for some unexplained reason cannot reach?

    Nah, it’s just jealousy.

    Edit - and I don’t think it will happen given MPs routinely own second homes.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 5,714
    IshmaelZ said:

    There's edge cases like grannies living in Palladian mansions on income support, and hedge fund managers who spend every penny on cocaine and show girls, but on the whole asset rich and income rich correlate pretty spectacularly, so wealth vs income tax is just about the mechanics of collection. So why the enthusiasm for wealth? Is it meant to target a particularly loathsome type of rich person, or to deplete the parts which other taxes for some unexplained reason cannot reach?

    Put crudely, I think the argument would be that taxes on earnings stifle the ability of people to build up wealth and become more secure; taxes on assets are about creaming some of the wealth off those who have already got there. Besides which, we find ourselves in a lengthy, perhaps indefinite, age of stagnating earnings and inflating asset prices.

    The obvious target is property, as so much of the national wealth is tied up in it and (unlike, say, shares, where one is investing in a business) it's a non-productive asset. OTOH it would upset an awful lot of old people with valuable properties but modest fixed incomes, so it won't happen, least of all with the Geriatric Party currently in Government.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,763
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    There's edge cases like grannies living in Palladian mansions on income support, and hedge fund managers who spend every penny on cocaine and show girls, but on the whole asset rich and income rich correlate pretty spectacularly, so wealth vs income tax is just about the mechanics of collection. So why the enthusiasm for wealth? Is it meant to target a particularly loathsome type of rich person, or to deplete the parts which other taxes for some unexplained reason cannot reach?

    Nah, it’s just jealousy.
    Nae doot, but why be more (or less) twisted out of shape with envy by the thought of £2,000,000 p.a. vs £200m net assets?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    There's edge cases like grannies living in Palladian mansions on income support, and hedge fund managers who spend every penny on cocaine and show girls, but on the whole asset rich and income rich correlate pretty spectacularly, so wealth vs income tax is just about the mechanics of collection. So why the enthusiasm for wealth? Is it meant to target a particularly loathsome type of rich person, or to deplete the parts which other taxes for some unexplained reason cannot reach?

    Nah, it’s just jealousy.
    Nae doot, but why be more (or less) twisted out of shape with envy by the thought of £2,000,000 p.a. vs £200m net assets?
    You can lose an income. Hard to lose that many net assets.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,733
    IshmaelZ said:

    There's edge cases like grannies living in Palladian mansions on income support, and hedge fund managers who spend every penny on cocaine and show girls, but on the whole asset rich and income rich correlate pretty spectacularly, so wealth vs income tax is just about the mechanics of collection. So why the enthusiasm for wealth? Is it meant to target a particularly loathsome type of rich person, or to deplete the parts which other taxes for some unexplained reason cannot reach?

    Not really so. The difference is age. And particularly property.

    Second homes would be the thing to go for, on the basis that no-one really needs more than one.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,949
    IanB2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    There's edge cases like grannies living in Palladian mansions on income support, and hedge fund managers who spend every penny on cocaine and show girls, but on the whole asset rich and income rich correlate pretty spectacularly, so wealth vs income tax is just about the mechanics of collection. So why the enthusiasm for wealth? Is it meant to target a particularly loathsome type of rich person, or to deplete the parts which other taxes for some unexplained reason cannot reach?

    Not really so. The difference is age. And particularly property.

    Second homes would be the thing to go for, on the basis that no-one really needs more than one.
    Exactly what is a second home? Serious question. A one time slate-workers cottage on the edge of Gwynedd village, occupied at weekends by a barrister from Manchester; probably. How about if said barrister owns a bijou 'lodge' on a 'selective development' in the grounds of what was once the slate-mine owners 19th C 'castle'. Which can only be visited for 11 months out of the 12.

    And good morning, one and all!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,007
    Great production values for Trump's homecoming video.

    Am I a bad person when I say I essentially agree with his don't let Coronavirus dominate you message?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,407
    Interesting polling. Also notable that other popular taxes are capital gains and higher council tax for big properties.

    Suggests to me there's a sweet spot for Starmer to say he will not raise income tax on wealthiest, but instead will sort out the issue of wealthiest paying very low effective tax rate.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 7,673
    TOPPING said:

    Am I a bad person when I say I essentially agree with his don't let Coronavirus dominate you message?

    Depends how many other people you infect
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,007
    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    Am I a bad person when I say I essentially agree with his don't let Coronavirus dominate you message?

    Depends how many other people you infect
    I don't think that's necessarily a sequitur.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 3,790

    IanB2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    There's edge cases like grannies living in Palladian mansions on income support, and hedge fund managers who spend every penny on cocaine and show girls, but on the whole asset rich and income rich correlate pretty spectacularly, so wealth vs income tax is just about the mechanics of collection. So why the enthusiasm for wealth? Is it meant to target a particularly loathsome type of rich person, or to deplete the parts which other taxes for some unexplained reason cannot reach?

    Not really so. The difference is age. And particularly property.

    Second homes would be the thing to go for, on the basis that no-one really needs more than one.
    Exactly what is a second home? Serious question. A one time slate-workers cottage on the edge of Gwynedd village, occupied at weekends by a barrister from Manchester; probably. How about if said barrister owns a bijou 'lodge' on a 'selective development' in the grounds of what was once the slate-mine owners 19th C 'castle'. Which can only be visited for 11 months out of the 12.

    And good morning, one and all!
    You can also pull tricks with a second house. One of my uncles in the 80s and 90s registered his wife as the only resident in their second home on the south coast, while he was the sole resident in their house in SE London.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 7,673
    TOPPING said:

    I don't think that's necessarily a sequitur.

    That's the point.

    If you live your life in such a way that doesn't endanger others, ok.

    If you are reckless, then you're an ass.

    Like Trump.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,763

    IshmaelZ said:

    There's edge cases like grannies living in Palladian mansions on income support, and hedge fund managers who spend every penny on cocaine and show girls, but on the whole asset rich and income rich correlate pretty spectacularly, so wealth vs income tax is just about the mechanics of collection. So why the enthusiasm for wealth? Is it meant to target a particularly loathsome type of rich person, or to deplete the parts which other taxes for some unexplained reason cannot reach?

    Put crudely, I think the argument would be that taxes on earnings stifle the ability of people to build up wealth and become more secure; taxes on assets are about creaming some of the wealth off those who have already got there. Besides which, we find ourselves in a lengthy, perhaps indefinite, age of stagnating earnings and inflating asset prices.

    The obvious target is property, as so much of the national wealth is tied up in it and (unlike, say, shares, where one is investing in a business) it's a non-productive asset. OTOH it would upset an awful lot of old people with valuable properties but modest fixed incomes, so it won't happen, least of all with the Geriatric Party currently in Government.
    But they'll think, Why earn money to buy Nice Things if the Things will then get taken away?

    This income vs capital thang is a usful accounting wheeze, but it's all just money.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,949
    eristdoof said:

    IanB2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    There's edge cases like grannies living in Palladian mansions on income support, and hedge fund managers who spend every penny on cocaine and show girls, but on the whole asset rich and income rich correlate pretty spectacularly, so wealth vs income tax is just about the mechanics of collection. So why the enthusiasm for wealth? Is it meant to target a particularly loathsome type of rich person, or to deplete the parts which other taxes for some unexplained reason cannot reach?

    Not really so. The difference is age. And particularly property.

    Second homes would be the thing to go for, on the basis that no-one really needs more than one.
    Exactly what is a second home? Serious question. A one time slate-workers cottage on the edge of Gwynedd village, occupied at weekends by a barrister from Manchester; probably. How about if said barrister owns a bijou 'lodge' on a 'selective development' in the grounds of what was once the slate-mine owners 19th C 'castle'. Which can only be visited for 11 months out of the 12.

    And good morning, one and all!
    You can also pull tricks with a second house. One of my uncles in the 80s and 90s registered his wife as the only resident in their second home on the south coast, while he was the sole resident in their house in SE London.

    Indeed; IIRC there was also a campaign some years ago for Tory voters who had second homes to consider where their vote might be most useful to the Party and register there.
    I fear that 'taxing second' homes is one of those ideas which look good on a poster, but are more difficult to actually put into effect.

    Not that I've got, or have either had or ever expect to have, one.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,007
    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I don't think that's necessarily a sequitur.

    That's the point.

    If you live your life in such a way that doesn't endanger others, ok.

    If you are reckless, then you're an ass.

    Like Trump.
    That's also true but his general assness notwithstanding, which is a big ask, the sentiment is a sound one.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,733
    edited October 6

    eristdoof said:

    IanB2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    There's edge cases like grannies living in Palladian mansions on income support, and hedge fund managers who spend every penny on cocaine and show girls, but on the whole asset rich and income rich correlate pretty spectacularly, so wealth vs income tax is just about the mechanics of collection. So why the enthusiasm for wealth? Is it meant to target a particularly loathsome type of rich person, or to deplete the parts which other taxes for some unexplained reason cannot reach?

    Not really so. The difference is age. And particularly property.

    Second homes would be the thing to go for, on the basis that no-one really needs more than one.
    Exactly what is a second home? Serious question. A one time slate-workers cottage on the edge of Gwynedd village, occupied at weekends by a barrister from Manchester; probably. How about if said barrister owns a bijou 'lodge' on a 'selective development' in the grounds of what was once the slate-mine owners 19th C 'castle'. Which can only be visited for 11 months out of the 12.

    And good morning, one and all!
    You can also pull tricks with a second house. One of my uncles in the 80s and 90s registered his wife as the only resident in their second home on the south coast, while he was the sole resident in their house in SE London.

    Indeed; IIRC there was also a campaign some years ago for Tory voters who had second homes to consider where their vote might be most useful to the Party and register there.
    I fear that 'taxing second' homes is one of those ideas which look good on a poster, but are more difficult to actually put into effect.

    Not that I've got, or have either had or ever expect to have, one.
    The new electoral registration rules are stricter and could be used as the basis for establishing primary residency for tax purposes.

    People often throw practical objections at suggested new tax arrangements without remembering how many holes there are and how much evasion there is with the taxes we are relying on already. Establishing that Mrs X doesn’t really spend most of her time in some south coast hideaway is probably easier than that she gets a lot of income paid in cash.

    Or, just forget about first and second, and simply tax property.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 963
    eristdoof said:

    IanB2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    There's edge cases like grannies living in Palladian mansions on income support, and hedge fund managers who spend every penny on cocaine and show girls, but on the whole asset rich and income rich correlate pretty spectacularly, so wealth vs income tax is just about the mechanics of collection. So why the enthusiasm for wealth? Is it meant to target a particularly loathsome type of rich person, or to deplete the parts which other taxes for some unexplained reason cannot reach?

    Not really so. The difference is age. And particularly property.

    Second homes would be the thing to go for, on the basis that no-one really needs more than one.
    Exactly what is a second home? Serious question. A one time slate-workers cottage on the edge of Gwynedd village, occupied at weekends by a barrister from Manchester; probably. How about if said barrister owns a bijou 'lodge' on a 'selective development' in the grounds of what was once the slate-mine owners 19th C 'castle'. Which can only be visited for 11 months out of the 12.

    And good morning, one and all!
    You can also pull tricks with a second house. One of my uncles in the 80s and 90s registered his wife as the only resident in their second home on the south coast, while he was the sole resident in their house in SE London.

    Back then they were possibly also claiming a 25% council single occupancy discount for each property, which was often a better deal than the 50% discount available on the (usually smaller) second home.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,949
    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    IanB2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    There's edge cases like grannies living in Palladian mansions on income support, and hedge fund managers who spend every penny on cocaine and show girls, but on the whole asset rich and income rich correlate pretty spectacularly, so wealth vs income tax is just about the mechanics of collection. So why the enthusiasm for wealth? Is it meant to target a particularly loathsome type of rich person, or to deplete the parts which other taxes for some unexplained reason cannot reach?

    Not really so. The difference is age. And particularly property.

    Second homes would be the thing to go for, on the basis that no-one really needs more than one.
    Exactly what is a second home? Serious question. A one time slate-workers cottage on the edge of Gwynedd village, occupied at weekends by a barrister from Manchester; probably. How about if said barrister owns a bijou 'lodge' on a 'selective development' in the grounds of what was once the slate-mine owners 19th C 'castle'. Which can only be visited for 11 months out of the 12.

    And good morning, one and all!
    You can also pull tricks with a second house. One of my uncles in the 80s and 90s registered his wife as the only resident in their second home on the south coast, while he was the sole resident in their house in SE London.

    Indeed; IIRC there was also a campaign some years ago for Tory voters who had second homes to consider where their vote might be most useful to the Party and register there.
    I fear that 'taxing second' homes is one of those ideas which look good on a poster, but are more difficult to actually put into effect.

    Not that I've got, or have either had or ever expect to have, one.
    The new electoral registration rules are stricter and could be used as the basis for establishing primary residency for tax purposes.

    People often throw practical objections at suggested new tax arrangements without remembering how many holes there are and how much evasion there is with the taxes we are relying on already.
    Two good points.

    I'm not opposed to a second homes tax; just saying it's not necessarily as easy as might at first appear.

    And probably the only people who pay tax as originally anticipated are those on PAYE without expense accounts.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 3,691
    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I don't think that's necessarily a sequitur.

    That's the point.

    If you live your life in such a way that doesn't endanger others, ok.

    If you are reckless, then you're an ass.

    Like Trump.
    That's also true but his general assness notwithstanding, which is a big ask, the sentiment is a sound one.
    It`s more than just a sentiment. With so many people`s poor grasp of the facts around Covid and the accompanying statistics it is no wonder that so many are allowing fear of the disease to dominate their lives.

    Trump`s comments, and Johnson`s on Marr, are welcome and much needed to address this irrationality to some degree, from such high profile figures who have gone through the experience (conspiracy theories withstanding). No matter how much you may despise Trump and Johnson, give credit where credit`s due.

    Mental wellbeing is everything when you think about it. Going forward optimistically, fearlessly, confidently but also cautiously and with common sense is what people should always have been doing. It`s what I`ve always been doing and I wish everyone else would jump aboard, accepting that hiding scared from a virus, rather than accepting that life now carries an additional danger that we have to live with, is no way to be.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,007
    Stocky said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I don't think that's necessarily a sequitur.

    That's the point.

    If you live your life in such a way that doesn't endanger others, ok.

    If you are reckless, then you're an ass.

    Like Trump.
    That's also true but his general assness notwithstanding, which is a big ask, the sentiment is a sound one.
    It`s more than just a sentiment. With so many people`s poor grasp of the facts around Covid and the accompanying statistics it is no wonder that so many are allowing fear of the disease to dominate their lives.

    Trump`s comments, and Johnson`s on Marr, are welcome and much needed to address this irrationality to some degree, from such high profile figures who have gone through the experience (conspiracy theories withstanding). No matter how much you may despise Trump and Johnson, give credit where credit`s due.

    Mental wellbeing is everything when you think about it. Going forward optimistically, fearlessly, confidently but also cautiously and with common sense is what people should always have been doing. It`s what I`ve always been doing and I wish everyone else would jump aboard, accepting that hiding scared from a virus, rather than accepting that life now carries an additional danger that we have to live with, is no way to be.
    Yes I agree completely. Just a shame about the messengers but not the office of the messengers.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 7,090

    rcs1000 said:

    I'm very happy for other people to pay more tax to pay for the cost of CV19

    So said a large chunk of the 90% of those polled who would apparently be unaffected by the proposal. The only thing that surprises me is that the idea wasn't even more popular.

    The concept of spending rises for me, paid for by tax rises for somebody else, earns lots of likes. Who'd-a-thunk it?
    Good story, only it isn't true for the likes that count, votes. In the UK we very rarely elect a government promising new taxes, even if they only impact a minority. So governments sneak them in where they can rather than doing sensible things like merging NI and income tax, introducing a wealth tax and replacing council tax with LVT.

    Covid provides cover to do some of the above, and I wouldnt be entirely surprised to see the government take action on either of the first two, despite being a Tory govt.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 3,691
    TOPPING said:

    Stocky said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    TOPPING said:

    I don't think that's necessarily a sequitur.

    That's the point.

    If you live your life in such a way that doesn't endanger others, ok.

    If you are reckless, then you're an ass.

    Like Trump.
    That's also true but his general assness notwithstanding, which is a big ask, the sentiment is a sound one.
    It`s more than just a sentiment. With so many people`s poor grasp of the facts around Covid and the accompanying statistics it is no wonder that so many are allowing fear of the disease to dominate their lives.

    Trump`s comments, and Johnson`s on Marr, are welcome and much needed to address this irrationality to some degree, from such high profile figures who have gone through the experience (conspiracy theories withstanding). No matter how much you may despise Trump and Johnson, give credit where credit`s due.

    Mental wellbeing is everything when you think about it. Going forward optimistically, fearlessly, confidently but also cautiously and with common sense is what people should always have been doing. It`s what I`ve always been doing and I wish everyone else would jump aboard, accepting that hiding scared from a virus, rather than accepting that life now carries an additional danger that we have to live with, is no way to be.
    Yes I agree completely. Just a shame about the messengers but not the office of the messengers.
    As a follow-up it`s also worth reflecting on people`s reactions when Trump was diagnosed as positive (even from some intelligent posters on here). The most likely outcome was no significant health affects (with no hospitalisation if he hadn`t been POTUS). No serious long term issues was also likely. Death very unlikely (less than 5% chance).

    Yet many seemed to believe that the scale of likelihood went in the other direction.

    That Trump is out of hospital (though the White House will be a quasi-hospital, I know) is not surprising, though medics point out that he`s not out of the woods yet.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,407

    rcs1000 said:

    I'm very happy for other people to pay more tax to pay for the cost of CV19

    So said a large chunk of the 90% of those polled who would apparently be unaffected by the proposal. The only thing that surprises me is that the idea wasn't even more popular.

    The concept of spending rises for me, paid for by tax rises for somebody else, earns lots of likes. Who'd-a-thunk it?
    Good story, only it isn't true for the likes that count, votes. In the UK we very rarely elect a government promising new taxes, even if they only impact a minority. So governments sneak them in where they can rather than doing sensible things like merging NI and income tax, introducing a wealth tax and replacing council tax with LVT.

    Covid provides cover to do some of the above, and I wouldnt be entirely surprised to see the government take action on either of the first two, despite being a Tory govt.
    I'd be absolutely stunned if the Tories brought in a wealth tax.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,671
    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,733
    CNN:

    "Now I'm better and maybe I'm immune? I don't know. But don't let it dominate your lives. Get out there, be careful," the President said.

    His behavior alarmed public health experts.

    "It is inexplainable that the President of the United States, who is actively shedding virus in millions of particles, would walk into that building with an enormous number of staff, unmasked," said Dr. Jonathan Reiner, a professor at George Washington University School of Medicine.

    "It is really hard to understand how no one told him not to do that. There doesn't seem to be anyone in charge of his care other than the President of the United States, other than the patient," Reiner told CNN's Erin Burnett.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,733
    edited October 6
    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    It is also the emerging reality within our politics of a pushback against the generational unfairness that is so obvious when you look at the distribution of wealth, and particularly property.

    That today’s 30-somethings have no chance of leading the lifestyle that we at the same age and career point twenty or thirty years ago had, is bound to play into our politics as these people get older.
  • The Tories spend a decade bleating on about the amount of debt they inherited at the same time as they doubled that debt. Now the Pox has quadrupled that original "we were bankrupt" debt.

    Because they can't tax I have to guess that the UK national debt will remain sky high for a long time. And we aren't bankrupt after all. Which will be a problem in the future the next the Tories want to spin a load of old bollocks.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 3,691
    moonshine said:

    It’s all straightforward really. Something is fundamentally broken with Western capitalism, with risk taking disincentivised, capital holders getting ever more capital and those relying on an income to build wealth losing. The great QE wheeze of the financial crisis, repeated so enthusiastically with covid, is the problem.

    It’s led to rampant inflation in financial assets (including parts of the uk property market) but has been accompanied by stagnant wages, due to some combination of the globalisation of labour/goods and poor productivity due to underinvestment in private sector r&d and state capital spending.

    The other kicker is that those households and corporates most able to raise leverage are the ones that benefit most, by taking out huge new debts at negative real rates and using the proceeds variously for property investment and stock buybacks.

    So what to do... as much as it pains me, there does need to be some way of recapturing wealth gained by capital holders through asset inflation and returning it to income earners.

    The trouble is, almost all the gain has been earned by something like the top 0.01% and we all know how this will play out. A clumsy government measure that kicks the middle 40% or so in the nuts, while simultaneously punishing “honest” gains made, as well as QE inspired ones. And leaving the 0.01% untouched.

    Short term what we need to do is get everyone off their arses and back functioning in the economy again. The triple lock needs to be ripped up - it’s a total scandal that the demographic that lockdown / semi lockdown is most targeted at assisting health-wise is the only demographic not having its income affected.

    Thereafter, capital gains ramped up with some form of index linking. Multiple home ownership kicked hard (it’s easy to close the loop holes if you really try). And dare I say it, centrally driven reform of council tax, both to normalise not just the revenue raising side but also the spending (for e.g. in the year before covid my parish increased its tax rate by 9%!).

    At a corporate level, I’d like to see an impact study not just of punitive tax measures on buybacks but corporate cash hoarding. We can’t persist with a situation where rather than investing in r&d, executives can gold plate their options packages, by artificially boosting the stock price with QE-funded stock buybacks. But equally we don’t much want trillions of dollars wasted on deposit either. Sci-fi movies have long predicted individuals being forced to consume, to keep the merry go round spinning. But I think they have it wrong. It’s the corporate giants that are underinvesting that are the biggest obstacle to wider societal wealth gains (in all senses of the word wealth).

    Great post Moonshine
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466

    The Tories spend a decade bleating on about the amount of debt they inherited at the same time as they doubled that debt. Now the Pox has quadrupled that original "we were bankrupt" debt.

    Because they can't tax I have to guess that the UK national debt will remain sky high for a long time. And we aren't bankrupt after all. Which will be a problem in the future the next the Tories want to spin a load of old bollocks.

    Its been a decade and you still don't understand the difference between deficit and debt.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 54,055
    Good morning, everyone.

    Dr. Foxy, yeah. And like the EU's VATmess shafted small businesses, attempting to hit a small group with a sledgehammer will affect others too. Taxing assets is a wonderful way to discourage saving, something we don't do enough of already.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,964

    The Tories spend a decade bleating on about the amount of debt they inherited at the same time as they doubled that debt. Now the Pox has quadrupled that original "we were bankrupt" debt.

    Because they can't tax I have to guess that the UK national debt will remain sky high for a long time. And we aren't bankrupt after all. Which will be a problem in the future the next the Tories want to spin a load of old bollocks.

    Its been a decade and you still don't understand the difference between deficit and debt.
    The difference is Tory deficit is good, Labour debt is bad. Sorted!
  • The Tories spend a decade bleating on about the amount of debt they inherited at the same time as they doubled that debt. Now the Pox has quadrupled that original "we were bankrupt" debt.

    Because they can't tax I have to guess that the UK national debt will remain sky high for a long time. And we aren't bankrupt after all. Which will be a problem in the future the next the Tories want to spin a load of old bollocks.

    Its been a decade and you still don't understand the difference between deficit and debt.
    Pretty sure that I do. Not sure that the Tories do. Then again they don't know what the WTO is or why Dover and Calais are important.

    Why do you keep defending these utter cretins? You're better than this.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037
    moonshine said:

    It’s all straightforward really. Something is fundamentally broken with Western capitalism, with risk taking disincentivised, capital holders getting ever more capital and those relying on an income to build wealth losing. The great QE wheeze of the financial crisis, repeated so enthusiastically with covid, is the problem.

    It’s led to rampant inflation in financial assets (including parts of the uk property market) but has been accompanied by stagnant wages, due to some combination of the globalisation of labour/goods and poor productivity due to underinvestment in private sector r&d and state capital spending.

    The other kicker is that those households and corporates most able to raise leverage are the ones that benefit most, by taking out huge new debts at negative real rates and using the proceeds variously for property investment and stock buybacks.

    So what to do... as much as it pains me, there does need to be some way of recapturing wealth gained by capital holders through asset inflation and returning it to income earners.

    The trouble is, almost all the gain has been earned by something like the top 0.01% and we all know how this will play out. A clumsy government measure that kicks the middle 40% or so in the nuts, while simultaneously punishing “honest” gains made, as well as QE inspired ones. And leaving the 0.01% untouched.

    Short term what we need to do is get everyone off their arses and back functioning in the economy again. The triple lock needs to be ripped up - it’s a total scandal that the demographic that lockdown / semi lockdown is most targeted at assisting health-wise is the only demographic not having its income affected.

    Thereafter, capital gains ramped up with some form of index linking. Multiple home ownership kicked hard (it’s easy to close the loop holes if you really try). And dare I say it, centrally driven reform of council tax, both to normalise not just the revenue raising side but also the spending (for e.g. in the year before covid my parish increased its tax rate by 9%!).

    At a corporate level, I’d like to see an impact study not just of punitive tax measures on buybacks but corporate cash hoarding. We can’t persist with a situation where rather than investing in r&d, executives can gold plate their options packages, by artificially boosting the stock price with QE-funded stock buybacks. But equally we don’t much want trillions of dollars wasted on deposit either. Sci-fi movies have long predicted individuals being forced to consume, to keep the merry go round spinning. But I think they have it wrong. It’s the corporate giants that are underinvesting that are the biggest obstacle to wider societal wealth gains (in all senses of the word wealth).

    Interesting and thought provoking post.

    The reason taxes on earnings are favoured is of course that they involve the actual movement of monies from which it is reasonably easy for the state to grab a share. The most effective wealth tax we currently have, SDLT, works on the same basis as, to a limited extent, does CGT. This leaves so much appreciating wealth beyond the scope of taxes that the whole system is distorted.

    Discretionary trusts and the like face a tax claim based upon the wealth of the Trust already in a 10 year anniversary charge that is designed to compensate for the fact that the trust would otherwise avoid inheritance tax. I think that this would be the start of the model that we need but applied much more widely.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466

    The Tories spend a decade bleating on about the amount of debt they inherited at the same time as they doubled that debt. Now the Pox has quadrupled that original "we were bankrupt" debt.

    Because they can't tax I have to guess that the UK national debt will remain sky high for a long time. And we aren't bankrupt after all. Which will be a problem in the future the next the Tories want to spin a load of old bollocks.

    Its been a decade and you still don't understand the difference between deficit and debt.
    The difference is Tory deficit is good, Labour debt is bad. Sorted!
    If the Tories increase a deficit during a period of growth then that would be bad. Can you name a year when that happened?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,733
    moonshine said:

    It’s all straightforward really. Something is fundamentally broken with Western capitalism, with risk taking disincentivised, capital holders getting ever more capital and those relying on an income to build wealth losing. The great QE wheeze of the financial crisis, repeated so enthusiastically with covid, is the problem.

    It’s led to rampant inflation in financial assets (including parts of the uk property market) but has been accompanied by stagnant wages, due to some combination of the globalisation of labour/goods and poor productivity due to underinvestment in private sector r&d and state capital spending.

    The other kicker is that those households and corporates most able to raise leverage are the ones that benefit most, by taking out huge new debts at negative real rates and using the proceeds variously for property investment and stock buybacks.

    So what to do... as much as it pains me, there does need to be some way of recapturing wealth gained by capital holders through asset inflation and returning it to income earners.

    The trouble is, almost all the gain has been earned by something like the top 0.01% and we all know how this will play out. A clumsy government measure that kicks the middle 40% or so in the nuts, while simultaneously punishing “honest” gains made, as well as QE inspired ones. And leaving the 0.01% untouched.

    Short term what we need to do is get everyone off their arses and back functioning in the economy again. The triple lock needs to be ripped up - it’s a total scandal that the demographic that lockdown / semi lockdown is most targeted at assisting health-wise is the only demographic not having its income affected.

    Thereafter, capital gains ramped up with some form of index linking. Multiple home ownership kicked hard (it’s easy to close the loop holes if you really try). And dare I say it, centrally driven reform of council tax, both to normalise not just the revenue raising side but also the spending (for e.g. in the year before covid my parish increased its tax rate by 9%!).

    At a corporate level, I’d like to see an impact study not just of punitive tax measures on buybacks but corporate cash hoarding. We can’t persist with a situation where rather than investing in r&d, executives can gold plate their options packages, by artificially boosting the stock price with QE-funded stock buybacks. But equally we don’t much want trillions of dollars wasted on deposit either. Sci-fi movies have long predicted individuals being forced to consume, to keep the merry go round spinning. But I think they have it wrong. It’s the corporate giants that are underinvesting that are the biggest obstacle to wider societal wealth gains (in all senses of the word wealth).

    As others have said, a great post.

    The role of QE in distorting economy and society is woefully unexamined, partly because it is so arcane and complicated, and partly because it has dug politicians out of a disastrous spot and so they avoid digging too deeply.

    The other factor is that, after allowing for differential turnout, our politics is in the spot where a majority of voters are not economically active.
  • Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.

    Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 56,679
    edited October 6
    Not even half are theoretically prepared. Not promising. Fewer would in practice.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466

    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.

    Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
    Or simplify the tax system and make it harder to avoid and apply evenly.

    It simply isn't true that Amazon and Starbucks don't pay taxes. They pay taxes on every sale that occurs (VAT) on wages they pay their employees (NI, PAYE) and many more. The issue is that HMRC tries to tax businesses about 8 different ways and these businesses are getting out of 1 of them. Well if that 1 is broken then fix the system and apply a level playing field.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,405

    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.

    Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
    Or simplify the tax system and make it harder to avoid and apply evenly.

    It simply isn't true that Amazon and Starbucks don't pay taxes. They pay taxes on every sale that occurs (VAT) on wages they pay their employees (NI, PAYE) and many more. The issue is that HMRC tries to tax businesses about 8 different ways and these businesses are getting out of 1 of them. Well if that 1 is broken then fix the system and apply a level playing field.
    The problem is the broken tax is impossible to tax as you do simply move goods round in ways to reduce absolute profits and there is little to nothing HMRC can do about it.

    To a large extent it would be best for HMRC to either not worry about it or find a mechanism that would make our corporate tax rates the lowest in the world so large companies send the money here rather than away from here.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037
    Scott_xP said:
    If we lived in a working democracy he would have resigned already, indeed the combination of First Minister and Party Chief Executive as a married couple would never have been thought appropriate in the first place. But Nicola will fight tooth and nail to resist this.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505
    Morning all,

    I see Trump is even more off his head than normal.

    God help us all if Biden gets this in next three weeks.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 56,679

    rcs1000 said:

    I'm very happy for other people to pay more tax to pay for the cost of CV19

    So said a large chunk of the 90% of those polled who would apparently be unaffected by the proposal. The only thing that surprises me is that the idea wasn't even more popular.

    The concept of spending rises for me, paid for by tax rises for somebody else, earns lots of likes. Who'd-a-thunk it?
    Good story, only it isn't true for the likes that count, votes. In the UK we very rarely elect a government promising new taxes, even if they only impact a minority. So governments sneak them in where they can rather than doing sensible things like merging NI and income tax, introducing a wealth tax and replacing council tax with LVT.

    Covid provides cover to do some of the above, and I wouldnt be entirely surprised to see the government take action on either of the first two, despite being a Tory govt.
    The government, being it seems stuck in campaign mode, seems petrified of anything radical that isn't just splurging cash, so worried about taking a polling hit that is probably inevitable anyway.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,405
    Scott_xP said:
    Given the choice between writing a solution to connect 2 systems together or implementing a quick work around - the quick work around is always going to win as most of the time you will need that quick work around to begin with.

    With Covid I suspect there is then far more useful things that a developer could be doing them implementing a proper solution for a short term issue that has a working quick fix.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505
    So, Biden will have to pull out of the next debate wont he? As Trump should be still isolating and he wont.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466
    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.

    Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
    Or simplify the tax system and make it harder to avoid and apply evenly.

    It simply isn't true that Amazon and Starbucks don't pay taxes. They pay taxes on every sale that occurs (VAT) on wages they pay their employees (NI, PAYE) and many more. The issue is that HMRC tries to tax businesses about 8 different ways and these businesses are getting out of 1 of them. Well if that 1 is broken then fix the system and apply a level playing field.
    The problem is the broken tax is impossible to tax as you do simply move goods round in ways to reduce absolute profits and there is little to nothing HMRC can do about it.

    To a large extent it would be best for HMRC to either not worry about it or find a mechanism that would make our corporate tax rates the lowest in the world so large companies send the money here rather than away from here.
    Precisely you've hit upon the solution.

    If the tax doesn't work then simplify and lower it. The money that comes here is taxed through other means then.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 56,679

    The Tories spend a decade bleating on about the amount of debt they inherited at the same time as they doubled that debt. Now the Pox has quadrupled that original "we were bankrupt" debt.

    Because they can't tax I have to guess that the UK national debt will remain sky high for a long time. And we aren't bankrupt after all. Which will be a problem in the future the next the Tories want to spin a load of old bollocks.

    Its been a decade and you still don't understand the difference between deficit and debt.
    The difference is Tory deficit is good, Labour debt is bad. Sorted!
    its a somewhat different situation now, though of course Boris had turned on the taps prior to Covid. But things done in an emergency doesn't necessarily mean those things should be done in regular times, or that they should not addressed in regular times after the event.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,405
    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I'm very happy for other people to pay more tax to pay for the cost of CV19

    So said a large chunk of the 90% of those polled who would apparently be unaffected by the proposal. The only thing that surprises me is that the idea wasn't even more popular.

    The concept of spending rises for me, paid for by tax rises for somebody else, earns lots of likes. Who'd-a-thunk it?
    Good story, only it isn't true for the likes that count, votes. In the UK we very rarely elect a government promising new taxes, even if they only impact a minority. So governments sneak them in where they can rather than doing sensible things like merging NI and income tax, introducing a wealth tax and replacing council tax with LVT.

    Covid provides cover to do some of the above, and I wouldnt be entirely surprised to see the government take action on either of the first two, despite being a Tory govt.
    The government, being it seems stuck in campaign mode, seems petrified of anything radical that isn't just splurging cash, so worried about taking a polling hit that is probably inevitable anyway.
    Merging NI and income tax won't work as it would either increase post 68 tax massively (so not an option) or explicitly reveal again how much better those who retired are.

    Personally I would love a LVT as its about the only sane wealth tax you could apply and recover in a world which is far more international than most people believe.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505
    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Given the choice between writing a solution to connect 2 systems together or implementing a quick work around - the quick work around is always going to win as most of the time you will need that quick work around to begin with.

    With Covid I suspect there is then far more useful things that a developer could be doing them implementing a proper solution for a short term issue that has a working quick fix.
    We've heard that £2billion has been spent on all this. There's plenty of spare change for a team of developers to sort out data integration from sources.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 36,196

    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.

    Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
    Re your last paragraph boycotting Amazon will not happen, not least because they offer a product and customer service unmatched by anyone.

    Covid has entrenched on line shopping and working like nothing else could, and we cannot stop this revolution

    Everyone wants Amazon to pay more tax, but the jobs but on the other side of the balance sheet they have created thousands of jobs providing security to their workforce and of course who pay their taxes
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466
    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Given the choice between writing a solution to connect 2 systems together or implementing a quick work around - the quick work around is always going to win as most of the time you will need that quick work around to begin with.

    With Covid I suspect there is then far more useful things that a developer could be doing them implementing a proper solution for a short term issue that has a working quick fix.
    Especially when the existing system is being replaced anyway so a working quick fix only needs to work until the new system is thoroughly tested then launched.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,405

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Given the choice between writing a solution to connect 2 systems together or implementing a quick work around - the quick work around is always going to win as most of the time you will need that quick work around to begin with.

    With Covid I suspect there is then far more useful things that a developer could be doing them implementing a proper solution for a short term issue that has a working quick fix.
    We've heard that £2billion has been spent on all this. There's plenty of spare change for a team of developers to sort out data integration from sources.

    Would you care to guess what I have earnt my incoming doing for the past 20 odd years. It is only yesterday that replacing the workaround would have been on anyone's radar and even now there will be people saying it's too risky to replace.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,100

    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.

    Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
    Or simplify the tax system and make it harder to avoid and apply evenly.

    It simply isn't true that Amazon and Starbucks don't pay taxes. They pay taxes on every sale that occurs (VAT) on wages they pay their employees (NI, PAYE) and many more. The issue is that HMRC tries to tax businesses about 8 different ways and these businesses are getting out of 1 of them. Well if that 1 is broken then fix the system and apply a level playing field.
    Customers pay VAT, Starbucks simply collects it. Employees pay PAYE and NI, Starbucks simply collects it. They do however pay employer NI contributions.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 56,679
    edited October 6
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    It is also the emerging reality within our politics of a pushback against the generational unfairness that is so obvious when you look at the distribution of wealth, and particularly property.

    That today’s 30-somethings have no chance of leading the lifestyle that we at the same age and career point twenty or thirty years ago had, is bound to play into our politics as these people get older.
    I think this is quite right. Whoever taps into that will hold onto their votes and either blunt or increase the general trend of people going tory as they age
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505
    As I predicted on here the other day. If the virus didn't kill Trump or take him out of action for weeks then we would never here the last from him and his personality cult about how his strength has defeated the weak virus.

    Standby for a month of this now.

  • eekeek Posts: 9,405

    So, Biden will have to pull out of the next debate wont he? As Trump should be still isolating and he wont.

    Trump should be isolating - so it would be perfectly valid to insist he did it remotely.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505
    eek said:

    So, Biden will have to pull out of the next debate wont he? As Trump should be still isolating and he wont.

    Trump should be isolating - so it would be perfectly valid to insist he did it remotely.
    Biden had better.

    He needs to be extraordinarily careful for the next three weeks.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 56,679
    eek said:

    So, Biden will have to pull out of the next debate wont he? As Trump should be still isolating and he wont.

    Trump should be isolating - so it would be perfectly valid to insist he did it remotely.
    I think the point remains Biden will need to demand that or pull out and Trump will seek to use it, hoping people think Biden is hiding.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037

    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.

    Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
    Re your last paragraph boycotting Amazon will not happen, not least because they offer a product and customer service unmatched by anyone.

    Covid has entrenched on line shopping and working like nothing else could, and we cannot stop this revolution

    Everyone wants Amazon to pay more tax, but the jobs but on the other side of the balance sheet they have created thousands of jobs providing security to their workforce and of course who pay their taxes
    I resist buying anything from Amazon if I can find an alternative. So far the evidence that this is bringing them to their knees is less than convincing. Amazon destroys far more jobs than it creates. This is an inevitable consequence of the efficiencies of scale that it enjoys. That is how the market is supposed to work but it is unacceptable that the playing field is tilted further in their direction by their competitors paying tax on their profits when they don't.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,553
    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Given the choice between writing a solution to connect 2 systems together or implementing a quick work around - the quick work around is always going to win as most of the time you will need that quick work around to begin with.

    With Covid I suspect there is then far more useful things that a developer could be doing them implementing a proper solution for a short term issue that has a working quick fix.
    Listening to Sir Paul Nurse on R4 this morning, it occurred to me that our national test track and trace system would be vastly better had he been put in charge, rather than the hapless Dido.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 18,245
    rkrkrk said:

    Interesting polling. Also notable that other popular taxes are capital gains and higher council tax for big properties.

    Suggests to me there's a sweet spot for Starmer to say he will not raise income tax on wealthiest, but instead will sort out the issue of wealthiest paying very low effective tax rate.

    People don't resent the income of the rich as much as they resent the possessions of the rich.

    A tax on WAGS would be very popular as well.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,733
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    It is also the emerging reality within our politics of a pushback against the generational unfairness that is so obvious when you look at the distribution of wealth, and particularly property.

    That today’s 30-somethings have no chance of leading the lifestyle that we at the same age and career point twenty or thirty years ago had, is bound to play into our politics as these people get older.
    I think this is quite right. Whoever taps into that will hold onto their votes and either blunt or increase the general trend of people going tory as they age
    There's an interesting article about this here; well worth a read, even though I believe it overstates the case:

    https://unherd.com/2020/10/why-the-young-hate-the-tories/
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,355

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Given the choice between writing a solution to connect 2 systems together or implementing a quick work around - the quick work around is always going to win as most of the time you will need that quick work around to begin with.

    With Covid I suspect there is then far more useful things that a developer could be doing them implementing a proper solution for a short term issue that has a working quick fix.
    Especially when the existing system is being replaced anyway so a working quick fix only needs to work until the new system is thoroughly tested then launched.
    Sending data in as a CSV export and then uploading it is a solution that has been used many, many times. It works.

    It was the use of Excel *inside* PHE to play with the data that, apparently, caused the problem.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505
    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Given the choice between writing a solution to connect 2 systems together or implementing a quick work around - the quick work around is always going to win as most of the time you will need that quick work around to begin with.

    With Covid I suspect there is then far more useful things that a developer could be doing them implementing a proper solution for a short term issue that has a working quick fix.
    Listening to Sir Paul Nurse on R4 this morning, it occurred to me that our national test track and trace system would be vastly better had he been put in charge, rather than the hapless Dido.
    He's not one of the chums though is he?
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 3,514
    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I'm very happy for other people to pay more tax to pay for the cost of CV19

    So said a large chunk of the 90% of those polled who would apparently be unaffected by the proposal. The only thing that surprises me is that the idea wasn't even more popular.

    The concept of spending rises for me, paid for by tax rises for somebody else, earns lots of likes. Who'd-a-thunk it?
    Good story, only it isn't true for the likes that count, votes. In the UK we very rarely elect a government promising new taxes, even if they only impact a minority. So governments sneak them in where they can rather than doing sensible things like merging NI and income tax, introducing a wealth tax and replacing council tax with LVT.

    Covid provides cover to do some of the above, and I wouldnt be entirely surprised to see the government take action on either of the first two, despite being a Tory govt.
    The government, being it seems stuck in campaign mode, seems petrified of anything radical that isn't just splurging cash, so worried about taking a polling hit that is probably inevitable anyway.
    Merging NI and income tax won't work as it would either increase post 68 tax massively (so not an option) or explicitly reveal again how much better those who retired are.

    Personally I would love a LVT as its about the only sane wealth tax you could apply and recover in a world which is far more international than most people believe.
    There's no reason you can't tax wages and pensions at different rates. After all we do at the moment, and just call part of the tax something else. The differential could then be eroded over time, if governments wanted to.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505
    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    So, Biden will have to pull out of the next debate wont he? As Trump should be still isolating and he wont.

    Trump should be isolating - so it would be perfectly valid to insist he did it remotely.
    I think the point remains Biden will need to demand that or pull out and Trump will seek to use it, hoping people think Biden is hiding.
    Yep.

    I'm very nervous about the polls in next few days. Hoping Larry Sabato is right and none of this charade will make any difference now as too late to change minds.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,733
    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I'm very happy for other people to pay more tax to pay for the cost of CV19

    So said a large chunk of the 90% of those polled who would apparently be unaffected by the proposal. The only thing that surprises me is that the idea wasn't even more popular.

    The concept of spending rises for me, paid for by tax rises for somebody else, earns lots of likes. Who'd-a-thunk it?
    Good story, only it isn't true for the likes that count, votes. In the UK we very rarely elect a government promising new taxes, even if they only impact a minority. So governments sneak them in where they can rather than doing sensible things like merging NI and income tax, introducing a wealth tax and replacing council tax with LVT.

    Covid provides cover to do some of the above, and I wouldnt be entirely surprised to see the government take action on either of the first two, despite being a Tory govt.
    The government, being it seems stuck in campaign mode, seems petrified of anything radical that isn't just splurging cash, so worried about taking a polling hit that is probably inevitable anyway.
    Merging NI and income tax won't work as it would either increase post 68 tax massively (so not an option) or explicitly reveal again how much better those who retired are.

    Personally I would love a LVT as its about the only sane wealth tax you could apply and recover in a world which is far more international than most people believe.
    In your first I think you mean that it is politically (very) difficult, not that it wouldn't work.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466

    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.

    Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
    Re your last paragraph boycotting Amazon will not happen, not least because they offer a product and customer service unmatched by anyone.

    Covid has entrenched on line shopping and working like nothing else could, and we cannot stop this revolution

    Everyone wants Amazon to pay more tax, but the jobs but on the other side of the balance sheet they have created thousands of jobs providing security to their workforce and of course who pay their taxes
    What Rochdale is suggesting is like someone standing in a fast moving stream trying to push the water back with their hands. It's simply unrealistic and won't work and will cause more harm than good.

    A working solution is needed.

    According to Amazon they paid £793mn in taxes in 2018 so it's not nothing. We need to find what works and ensure that applies consistently and fairly to all.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,553

    As I predicted on here the other day. If the virus didn't kill Trump or take him out of action for weeks then we would never here the last from him and his personality cult about how his strength has defeated the weak virus.

    People recover from the virus more often than they die or are permanently incapacitated by it.
    Ascribing patient outcomes to individual strength or determination is the mark of an idiot. So yes, we should expect it from him.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953
    Anyone think there's a high chance that Trump will be back in hospital within a week? I think others have pointed out that he didn't look in particularly good shape last night and that's with all the drugs pumped into him. I think he's still pretty ill.

    I suspect that he will want to come off the drugs asap as that will be evidence (for himself if nothing else) that he has "beaten" the virus, and the consequences could be quite bad.

    It may even be that the drugs have made it worse by creating distorting effects of his condition in his mind, and side effects of drugs are being confused with impacts of the virus.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 14,007
    Boris tilting at windmills today I see:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/05/boris-johnson-to-unveil-plan-to-power-all-uk-homes-with-wind-by-2030

    I'm all for more green energy but really, is this the most pressing issue today?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 42,407
    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Given the choice between writing a solution to connect 2 systems together or implementing a quick work around - the quick work around is always going to win as most of the time you will need that quick work around to begin with.

    With Covid I suspect there is then far more useful things that a developer could be doing them implementing a proper solution for a short term issue that has a working quick fix.
    rather than the hapless Dido.
    I love the Grauniad's Dido of Carnage.....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,733
    edited October 6

    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.

    Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
    Re your last paragraph boycotting Amazon will not happen, not least because they offer a product and customer service unmatched by anyone.

    Covid has entrenched on line shopping and working like nothing else could, and we cannot stop this revolution

    Everyone wants Amazon to pay more tax, but the jobs but on the other side of the balance sheet they have created thousands of jobs providing security to their workforce and of course who pay their taxes
    What Rochdale is suggesting is like someone standing in a fast moving stream trying to push the water back with their hands. It's simply unrealistic and won't work and will cause more harm than good.

    A working solution is needed.

    According to Amazon they paid £793mn in taxes in 2018 so it's not nothing. We need to find what works and ensure that applies consistently and fairly to all.
    Abolish Luxemburg would help. I drove through it on Thursday and had forgotten what a giant filling station it is, with traffic streaming in from neighbouring countries to fill up on cheap fuel at its massive filling stations with long lines of pumps, every three or four served by a payment kiosk and traffic barrier, without any shops/toilets/cafes/rest areas whatsoever.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 56,679
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    It is also the emerging reality within our politics of a pushback against the generational unfairness that is so obvious when you look at the distribution of wealth, and particularly property.

    That today’s 30-somethings have no chance of leading the lifestyle that we at the same age and career point twenty or thirty years ago had, is bound to play into our politics as these people get older.
    I think this is quite right. Whoever taps into that will hold onto their votes and either blunt or increase the general trend of people going tory as they age
    There's an interesting article about this here; well worth a read, even though I believe it overstates the case:

    https://unherd.com/2020/10/why-the-young-hate-the-tories/
    A compellingly bleak case for the Tories. Its interesting that the starkness lot the age gap is really quite recent.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 42,407
    alex_ said:

    Anyone think there's a high chance that Trump will be back in hospital within a week? I think others have pointed out that he didn't look in particularly good shape last night and that's with all the drugs pumped into him. I think he's still pretty ill.

    I suspect that he will want to come off the drugs asap as that will be evidence (for himself if nothing else) that he has "beaten" the virus, and the consequences could be quite bad.

    It may even be that the drugs have made it worse by creating distorting effects of his condition in his mind, and side effects of drugs are being confused with impacts of the virus.


    Steroids in particular need to be tapered carefully - and while it's difficult to tell if they've affected his behaviour as its not notably more erratic than previously - time will tell.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,553

    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.

    Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
    Re your last paragraph boycotting Amazon will not happen, not least because they offer a product and customer service unmatched by anyone.

    Covid has entrenched on line shopping and working like nothing else could, and we cannot stop this revolution

    Everyone wants Amazon to pay more tax, but the jobs but on the other side of the balance sheet they have created thousands of jobs providing security to their workforce and of course who pay their taxes
    What Rochdale is suggesting is like someone standing in a fast moving stream trying to push the water back with their hands. It's simply unrealistic and won't work and will cause more harm than good.

    A working solution is needed.

    According to Amazon they paid £793mn in taxes in 2018 so it's not nothing. We need to find what works and ensure that applies consistently and fairly to all.
    Not on their UK profits (which are massively understated via offshoring).
    They paid under £15m in corporation tax.

    Their reported UK sales were around $17 billion, and it’s anyone’s guess what the realistic profit generated on those sales might be. But I think it reasonable to conclude that it’s at least an order of magnitude greater than stated.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 42,407
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:
    If we lived in a working democracy he would have resigned already, indeed the combination of First Minister and Party Chief Executive as a married couple would never have been thought appropriate in the first place. But Nicola will fight tooth and nail to resist this.

    Expect a weapons grade Circuit Breaker dead cat in three....two....
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,608
    alex_ said:



    I suspect that he will want to come off the drugs asap as that will be evidence (for himself if nothing else) that he has "beaten" the virus, and the consequences could be quite bad.

    Why will he? He has been a consistent user and abuser of prescription drugs for years. They'll keep him pumped full of whatever to keep the show on the road.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 18,245
    Alistair said:

    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.

    Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
    Or simplify the tax system and make it harder to avoid and apply evenly.

    It simply isn't true that Amazon and Starbucks don't pay taxes. They pay taxes on every sale that occurs (VAT) on wages they pay their employees (NI, PAYE) and many more. The issue is that HMRC tries to tax businesses about 8 different ways and these businesses are getting out of 1 of them. Well if that 1 is broken then fix the system and apply a level playing field.
    Customers pay VAT, Starbucks simply collects it. Employees pay PAYE and NI, Starbucks simply collects it. They do however pay employer NI contributions.
    Though it can be argued that workers are effectively paying employers NI - without it their pay rates would increase without any extra cost to their employer.

    By splitting off employers NI, which doesn't appear on a payslip, government is able to hide how much tax is being raised on the employee's work.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505
    "...apparently when all of the infected geniuses from the West Wing put their heads together (over Zoom) to hash out what the optics of the president’s return should be, “lessons learned” came in a distant second to “übermensch.” "

    "The show must go on.

    Where, exactly, the rest of us go from here, I cannot say. What feats Republican senators will be asked to perform alongside Trump to prove their commitment we cannot guess."

    https://thebulwark.com/the-weirdest-90-seconds-in-presidential-history/


  • kle4kle4 Posts: 56,679
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.

    Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
    Re your last paragraph boycotting Amazon will not happen, not least because they offer a product and customer service unmatched by anyone.

    Covid has entrenched on line shopping and working like nothing else could, and we cannot stop this revolution

    Everyone wants Amazon to pay more tax, but the jobs but on the other side of the balance sheet they have created thousands of jobs providing security to their workforce and of course who pay their taxes
    I resist buying anything from Amazon if I can find an alternative. So far the evidence that this is bringing them to their knees is less than convincing. Amazon destroys far more jobs than it creates. This is an inevitable consequence of the efficiencies of scale that it enjoys. That is how the market is supposed to work but it is unacceptable that the playing field is tilted further in their direction by their competitors paying tax on their profits when they don't.
    Makes sense.

    Th usefulness of amazon has bought them a lot of leeway. I'm naturally more disinclined toward Facebook as a company as it doesn't offer me a service I need or want, so all I see is the negatives and therefore a pretty sinister entity. Likewise Apple I associate with overpriced electronics at best slightly better than others, so their scale looks wrong. But the big ones don't need a pass, any of them.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953
    Dura_Ace said:

    alex_ said:



    I suspect that he will want to come off the drugs asap as that will be evidence (for himself if nothing else) that he has "beaten" the virus, and the consequences could be quite bad.

    Why will he? He has been a consistent user and abuser of prescription drugs for years. They'll keep him pumped full of whatever to keep the show on the road.
    Does he want to be in a debate with Joe Biden when the question comes up "have you taken drugs to be here tonight"?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 18,245
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.

    Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
    Re your last paragraph boycotting Amazon will not happen, not least because they offer a product and customer service unmatched by anyone.

    Covid has entrenched on line shopping and working like nothing else could, and we cannot stop this revolution

    Everyone wants Amazon to pay more tax, but the jobs but on the other side of the balance sheet they have created thousands of jobs providing security to their workforce and of course who pay their taxes
    What Rochdale is suggesting is like someone standing in a fast moving stream trying to push the water back with their hands. It's simply unrealistic and won't work and will cause more harm than good.

    A working solution is needed.

    According to Amazon they paid £793mn in taxes in 2018 so it's not nothing. We need to find what works and ensure that applies consistently and fairly to all.
    Abolish Luxemburg would help. I drove through it on Thursday and had forgotten what a giant filling station it is, with traffic streaming in from neighbouring countries to fill up on cheap fuel at its massive filling stations with long lines of pumps, every three or four served by a payment kiosk and traffic barrier, without any shops/toilets/cafes/rest areas whatsoever.
    Notice how these tax dodging micro countries are scattered throughout Western Europe - Luxemburg, Lichtenstein, San Marino, Monaco, Andorra.

    Not forgetting the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,355
    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    The reason that so many favour wealth taxes, is that it is not just Americans that are pissed off when the conspicuously wealthy pay bugger all income tax, like Donald Trump. Similarly that booming companies like Amazon and other tech giants pay nothing.

    When taxes are optional for the rich, it creates a lot of resentment, and rightly so.

    Indeed. The problem of course is that whilst any given country can sort out their own tax code to make corporations and individuals pay due taxes, they can't sort everywhere else's tax code. Hence how Starbucks can send all their coffee beans via Luxembourg. I can't see a solution to this that isn't a consumer boycott.

    Make tax avoidance an anathema. Make consumers refuse to engage with the likes of Amazon so that paying due taxes is what makes their business viable. I know, it won't work. Because the likes of Amazon are far too useful to be boycotted.
    Or simplify the tax system and make it harder to avoid and apply evenly.

    It simply isn't true that Amazon and Starbucks don't pay taxes. They pay taxes on every sale that occurs (VAT) on wages they pay their employees (NI, PAYE) and many more. The issue is that HMRC tries to tax businesses about 8 different ways and these businesses are getting out of 1 of them. Well if that 1 is broken then fix the system and apply a level playing field.
    The problem is the broken tax is impossible to tax as you do simply move goods round in ways to reduce absolute profits and there is little to nothing HMRC can do about it.

    To a large extent it would be best for HMRC to either not worry about it or find a mechanism that would make our corporate tax rates the lowest in the world so large companies send the money here rather than away from here.
    One issue with taxing corporate profits is businesses running in startup mode, perpetually.

    Amazon deliberately minimises profits by spending as much as it can on investing in growing. Tesla does the same.

    So even if you eliminated all the profit trading around the world, there is a problem. It is quite easy not to make a profit. And if you can do so in a way that keeps the shareholders happy....

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,553

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Given the choice between writing a solution to connect 2 systems together or implementing a quick work around - the quick work around is always going to win as most of the time you will need that quick work around to begin with.

    With Covid I suspect there is then far more useful things that a developer could be doing them implementing a proper solution for a short term issue that has a working quick fix.
    Listening to Sir Paul Nurse on R4 this morning, it occurred to me that our national test track and trace system would be vastly better had he been put in charge, rather than the hapless Dido.
    He's not one of the chums though is he?
    No, but he understands how to manage labs and data.
    And has a very clear understanding of the importance of rapid and locally usable test results, as opposed to tractor statistics.

    Why the government believed a second rate corporate apparatchik was a sensible appointment is not a mystery, but it is still a disgrace.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 34,502
    I’m somewhat sceptical about Giuliani’s test.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,608
    alex_ said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    alex_ said:



    I suspect that he will want to come off the drugs asap as that will be evidence (for himself if nothing else) that he has "beaten" the virus, and the consequences could be quite bad.

    Why will he? He has been a consistent user and abuser of prescription drugs for years. They'll keep him pumped full of whatever to keep the show on the road.
    Does he want to be in a debate with Joe Biden when the question comes up "have you taken drugs to be here tonight"?
    No big deal. He'll just say, "No, but you have."
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,733

    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I'm very happy for other people to pay more tax to pay for the cost of CV19

    So said a large chunk of the 90% of those polled who would apparently be unaffected by the proposal. The only thing that surprises me is that the idea wasn't even more popular.

    The concept of spending rises for me, paid for by tax rises for somebody else, earns lots of likes. Who'd-a-thunk it?
    Good story, only it isn't true for the likes that count, votes. In the UK we very rarely elect a government promising new taxes, even if they only impact a minority. So governments sneak them in where they can rather than doing sensible things like merging NI and income tax, introducing a wealth tax and replacing council tax with LVT.

    Covid provides cover to do some of the above, and I wouldnt be entirely surprised to see the government take action on either of the first two, despite being a Tory govt.
    The government, being it seems stuck in campaign mode, seems petrified of anything radical that isn't just splurging cash, so worried about taking a polling hit that is probably inevitable anyway.
    Merging NI and income tax won't work as it would either increase post 68 tax massively (so not an option) or explicitly reveal again how much better those who retired are.

    Personally I would love a LVT as its about the only sane wealth tax you could apply and recover in a world which is far more international than most people believe.
    There's no reason you can't tax wages and pensions at different rates. After all we do at the moment, and just call part of the tax something else. The differential could then be eroded over time, if governments wanted to.
    But why should you?

    Anyhow focusing on pension income regarding tax and NI is missing the broader issue - harmonising tax on earned and unearned income surely makes sense? Why should someone receiving income from investments or property pay so much less tax than someone who works for it?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505
    There is no way Trump will leave office without being physically ejected.

    One look at this morning's video of him after the hospital tells you he now thinks he is the King of America, saved by God, and only death will end it.

    It is going to be very very dark in America over next three months.

Sign In or Register to comment.