Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Will the panickers stop panicking when their tanks are full? – politicalbetting.com

145791013

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,143

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    A £30 billion promise, where is it coming from if not business rates
    only the high street so it's probably £10-15bn not £30bn but even so a Government would need that money coming from somewhere.

    I'm completely shocked by the lack of preparation Labour has done for this conference, it really wasn't difficult - talk about NI increases, introduce the discussions regarding a wealth tax and just keep everything else ticking along.
    They could not have had a worse conference if they had tried

    Utterly bizarre

    I did smile at Burley on Sky bemoaning HMG refusing to put up spokespersons while the labour party conference was on

    Clever and astute, why interrupt them

    Why would the government but a Tory up to argue with a Labour shadow, when the media will happily put two Labour MPs on to argue with each other. Usually quite a heated argument, over something utterly trivial.
  • MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    It may be a good policy but from where are Labour proposing to fill the £10bn or so tax shortfall? I'd like to see some detail on this proposal and as I've said, I'm still open minded on voting for Labour vs not voting at all.
    I'm not.
  • eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    A £30 billion promise, where is it coming from if not business rates
    only the high street so it's probably £10-15bn not £30bn but even so a Government would need that money coming from somewhere.

    I'm completely shocked by the lack of preparation Labour has done for this conference, it really wasn't difficult - talk about NI increases, introduce the discussions regarding a wealth tax and just keep everything else ticking along.
    This weekend they called Tory voters "scum", batted away any suggestion women are biologically distinctive, and raised worry beads for Tory Remainers in the south-east through noises on tax and whacking VAT on private school fees.

    Labour truly do the Lord's work - for the Conservative Party.
    "This bounty hunter Tory is my kind of scum. Fearless and inventive!"
  • Selebian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ping said:

    Shell energy take over 255k green energy customers.

    How long until shell also go bust?

    What's the structural link to the big Shell ?
    Has anyone done the 'shell company' joke yet?
    I filled up this morning wearing a shell suit.

    (only kidding!)
  • eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    A £30 billion promise, where is it coming from if not business rates
    only the high street so it's probably £10-15bn not £30bn but even so a Government would need that money coming from somewhere.

    I'm completely shocked by the lack of preparation Labour has done for this conference, it really wasn't difficult - talk about NI increases, introduce the discussions regarding a wealth tax and just keep everything else ticking along.
    This weekend they called Tory voters "scum", batted away any suggestion women are biologically distinctive, and raised worry beads for Tory Remainers in the south-east through noises on tax and whacking VAT on private school fees.

    Labour truly do the Lord's work - for the Conservative Party.
    Indeed. The Shadow Chancellor calling for an easing on tax pressures on businesses really goes against the grain of the rest of the Conference and is likely to be entirely missed by the public versus the issues you spoke about.

    If Labour could just STFU about stupid issues and think about how to be sensible then they might actually win voters. Perhaps Rachel Reeves should be party leader?
  • eekeek Posts: 18,825
    edited September 2021
    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    I agree with you that its a good idea, except they've got no clue it seems as to how they would do so. So they're saying it will be done but we're to take it on faith that they'll have a way to do it.

    As it happens I agree that its the beginnings of a good policy, they're at least on the right path! That's something at least and I'll give them credit for that, first time in many years as either in Shadow or in office that Labour's Chancellor spokesperson seems to understand something about the issues in economy.

    But I'll wait before saying its a good policy until the policy is actually formulated and not just "this sounds good" but without details. To be fair though years before the election "this sounds good" but without details is an OK starting point and better than what Labour have had for many years!
    Thanks. As you're broadly sympathetic to the aims, I expect the Tories (yes, I know you're not one) to nick it any time soon.
    I seem to remember when I was drafting a possible policy agenda for SKS that this was one of my suggestions. I think that there is quite a compelling case to try and rebalance the tax demands between bricks and clicks. Shops are not only a good source of employment, they keep our city centres vibrant and are more accessible to the elderly etc.

    But you cannot simply abolish £15bn of tax revenues without having an alternative when we already have an unsustainable deficit. That is just lazy.
    This is the issue here - you need to understand what you plan to tax, why you plan to do so and how you plan to do so.

    You also when talking about retail need to understand why people purchase stuff online and it's usually for reasons where the high street could never compete.

    Only after that can you start talking about how you will give people tax breaks as otherwise it's a question of where are you going to get that £xbn from.

    And there are serious amount of structural issues within our tax system but there isn't any easy solutions as all changes will impact people's behaviour and that might have unintended consequences.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,535

    eek said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    OK, so where is the £15bn as it won't be coming from Amazon and co as Labour hasn't yet devised a means of collecting £15bn in tax from them.
    I'm sure you and others will be listening to Rachel Reeves shortly. At this stage of the electoral cycle, it wouldn't be sensible to say precisely where the money's coming from, because things change. It will be in the manifesto in time for the next GE campaign.
    I listened to Rachel a couple of times this weekend and her interview with Nick Robinson is worth watching on catch up

    At school she won a British under 14 girls chess championship and her cv dwarfs the shadow cabinet with time at the Bank of England, British Embassy in Washington and HBOS

    Labour should be falling over backwards to promote her to leader, she may even attract me to her policies but labour have to divest themselves of a lot of nonsense first
    I haven't listened, but will - thank you.

    Did she spend a lot of time going on about how awful the Tories are or did she set out the problems facing the country and broad ideas on how to address them and/or a vision for where to get to? If it's worth listening to, then I suspect the latter.

    What I remember of Blair was the vision of how to make things better, the priorities, the education, education education. I'm sure he ripped the Tories apart in the commons, but I don't recall him spending that much time in public talking about them. I don't remember the killer attack lines, if there were some. I remember the vision, the setting out of priorities for a Labour government.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,535

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    It may be a good policy but from where are Labour proposing to fill the £10bn or so tax shortfall? I'd like to see some detail on this proposal and as I've said, I'm still open minded on voting for Labour vs not voting at all.
    I'm not.
    Were you ever? Didn't you make HYUFD's true Tory list the other day? :wink:
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,454

    On the German election, I believe there was an advisory referendum in Berlin on requisitioning apartments owned by mega landlords to turn in to social housing, won pretty conclusively by the requisitioners. Any of the German experts know if any action will result from this?

    Looking at the wiki page for the Berlin state election pretty amazing to see that die Linke were leading the polls a year ago.

    Tweet @jonworth on that.

    Die Grune member and lives in Berlin.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    I'm sure this goes down very well with Labour past voters party members:

    People seem to be far more concerned with my choice of language than the fact that @BorisJohnson has made comments that are racist, homophobic and sexist.

    I'm very happy to sit down with Boris. If he withdraws his comments and apologises, I'll be very happy to apologise to him.


    https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1442433911859019780?s=20

    Which prize, exactly, has Angela set her eyes upon?

    Is she the Messiah - or just a naughty girl?
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 1,507

    mwadams said:

    mwadams said:

    MattW said:

    mwadams said:

    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    Checking up on gas storage facilities, Governments have been giving complacent replies since at least 2009.

    There's an article on ConHome having at go at the then Govt, quoting awkward Commons questions from one Greg Clarke.
    https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2009/03/greg-clark-says.html

    At the time our last big Gas Storage location closed in 2017 the Secretary of State for Energy who sat on his Rs and did nothing was one ... Greg Clarke.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Clark

    Yes, gas storage is a legitimate problem. Older facilities weren’t replaced as they reached the end of their life, and governments of all colours allowed Centrica to run down the available storage.

    Now it appears that Mr Putin is happy to conduct an experiment on how much he can restrict the gas supply to Europe, we see the predicable result of higher energy prices.
    The government bowed to pressure from the Green lobby and was reluctant to be seen to committing ourselves to hydrocarbon dependency going forward. Which would be fine, except that we do have that dependency and it is aggravating an international problem in this country. Unless and until we have adequate alternative supplies and storage capacity we need to improve the storage of gas in this country. It is just mad not to.
    +1 - the answer should have been we don't need this capacity long term so we would be happy for it to close in 2030....
    Or just tell the Green loonies to f*%k themselves, that heating people's homes in the winter takes priority over fashionable environmental fads, which is more and more what I think they should be doing.
    This is about energy security.

    There has been both a medium term failure and a number of long term failures of government.

    The medium term failure was insufficient focus on gas storage (and nuclear) as a transitional measure away from coal and towards renewables. For short-termist reasons.

    The long term failure is that renewable transition which could easily have been a decade or more ahead of where we are now, had we taken *less* heed of the fact that a lot of the UK Green policy has been chaotic nonsense for decades, and thought more about the underlying issue.

    Sadly we have 30 years of "if it's Green it must be nonsense" to overcome - which is a legitimate response to large swathes of the (UK) Green movement over the years, but not to the underlying environmental concerns they purport to express.
    As things stand we are getting on for a decade ahead of many of our peer countries, so I think we can cut ourselves some slack on that one.

    And not really sure about the "if it's Green it's nonsense", either. I think that for real policy initiatives, there has been a lot of significant stuff for a long time.

    Agree with the remainder, however.
    It's not the *truth* of "if It's Green it's nonsense" - it's that this has been the messaging of the right-of-centre world for ~30 years (the last truly right-of-centre environmental messaging being Thatcher and the ozone hole science >30y ago now). And that supertanker needs to be turned.

    And I agree that we are currently with the "leaders" in the space; I'm worried that we are going to be under-invested in the coming decades through complacency and a lack of understanding of the scale of the economic opportunity v. challenge of green tech.
    That's complete bollocks.

    This country had (once you account for offshored emissions) no emission reduction at all under the last Labour government. None whatsoever.

    Emissions under the Tory-led and Tory-only government since 2010 have collapsed as we have turned off the use of coal. Something left-of-centre nations across Europe, or left-of-centre USA under Obama until 2017 haven't done yet.

    This country has literally been a world leader under a centre-right government on this issue.
    I *completely* agree that we are in the vanguard of turning off coal and all credit to the centre-right governments that have done that.

    But right-of-centre messaging has been resolutely "the Greens are loony", and somewhat climate-change-denialist for a long time too. And we need a realignment of policy and messaging (which I think means just ignoring the radical leftist end of the Greens and unambiguously co-opting the lower-case-g green parts of their language.
    The Greens (capital G) are loony.

    But green issues are not and lowercase g greens have been something Conservatives have led on from Thatcher, to Cameron and Boris.
    I agree, but it takes a long while for the turnaround in messaging to cut through.

    It used to be the strategy to position against "the left" with these kinds of statements:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/20/johnson-defends-new-trade-secretary-after-climate-crisis-denial-tweets

    And now they need to work hard to describe it as "a change of mind" - despite all the work in government that meant that we are better placed than many to push on from here.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,952

    HYUFD said:

    More bottler news.

    "Don't mention the Sturgeon war! Tory ministers 'are ordered not to talk about Scottish independence' amid fears it just fuels separatist drive
    Ministers told not to engage with SNP or even make a positive case for the union
    They admit it would be 'very hard' for unionists to win new referendum currently
    They want to focus on Sturgeon and SNP's record amid NHS and drug crises"

    https://tinyurl.com/3zjw52ck

    They've certainly maintained an iron discipline on the not making a positive case for the union thing.

    2014 was a once in a generation referendum, they don't need to until a generation has elapsed since then.

    Union matters are reserved to Westminster so as long as this Tory government is in power it can refuse indyref2 and nothing Sturgeon can do about it
    I'm still not clear on whether it's a once in a generation referendum or NEVER for the Tories.
    I suspect you're not clear about this in your own wee noddle, so we share that at least.
    Once in a generation which in my book means about 25 years. But even a stalwart and steadfast Blue Lovely as I aspire to be, would harbour doubts about the party remaining continuously in office until 2039.

    HYFUD talks about a putative (minority) Labour Govt in 2023/4 granting a referendum as a precondition for SNP acquiescence. But I suspect that Sir Keir won't budge and challenge Ian Blackford to vote with the hated Tories to bring his govt down on its Queens Speech.

    Who knows; it's all pretty pointless conjecture at this stage anyway. FWIW - and it ain't worth much I readily concede - my hunch from Surrey Mansions is that the next referendum won't take place before 2030.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,596
    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    I agree with you that its a good idea, except they've got no clue it seems as to how they would do so. So they're saying it will be done but we're to take it on faith that they'll have a way to do it.

    As it happens I agree that its the beginnings of a good policy, they're at least on the right path! That's something at least and I'll give them credit for that, first time in many years as either in Shadow or in office that Labour's Chancellor spokesperson seems to understand something about the issues in economy.

    But I'll wait before saying its a good policy until the policy is actually formulated and not just "this sounds good" but without details. To be fair though years before the election "this sounds good" but without details is an OK starting point and better than what Labour have had for many years!
    Thanks. As you're broadly sympathetic to the aims, I expect the Tories (yes, I know you're not one) to nick it any time soon.
    I seem to remember when I was drafting a possible policy agenda for SKS that this was one of my suggestions. I think that there is quite a compelling case to try and rebalance the tax demands between bricks and clicks. Shops are not only a good source of employment, they keep our city centres vibrant and are more accessible to the elderly etc.

    But you cannot simply abolish £15bn of tax revenues without having an alternative when we already have an unsustainable deficit. That is just lazy.
    This is the issue here - you need to understand what you plan to tax, why you plan to do so and how you plan to do so.

    You also when talking about retail need to understand why people purchase stuff online and it's usually for reasons where the high street could never compete.

    Only after that can you start talking about how you will give people tax breaks as otherwise it's a question of where are you going to get that £xbn from.

    And there are serious amount of structural issues within our tax system but there isn't any easy solutions as all changes will impact people's behaviour and that might have unintended consequences.
    But the first part of the policy ought to make it easier to repurpose high street properties large numbers of which are just sitting vacant.
  • eek said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    I agree with you that its a good idea, except they've got no clue it seems as to how they would do so. So they're saying it will be done but we're to take it on faith that they'll have a way to do it.

    As it happens I agree that its the beginnings of a good policy, they're at least on the right path! That's something at least and I'll give them credit for that, first time in many years as either in Shadow or in office that Labour's Chancellor spokesperson seems to understand something about the issues in economy.

    But I'll wait before saying its a good policy until the policy is actually formulated and not just "this sounds good" but without details. To be fair though years before the election "this sounds good" but without details is an OK starting point and better than what Labour have had for many years!
    Thanks. As you're broadly sympathetic to the aims, I expect the Tories (yes, I know you're not one) to nick it any time soon.
    I seem to remember when I was drafting a possible policy agenda for SKS that this was one of my suggestions. I think that there is quite a compelling case to try and rebalance the tax demands between bricks and clicks. Shops are not only a good source of employment, they keep our city centres vibrant and are more accessible to the elderly etc.

    But you cannot simply abolish £15bn of tax revenues without having an alternative when we already have an unsustainable deficit. That is just lazy.
    This is the issue here - you need to understand what you plan to tax, why you plan to do so and how you plan to do so.

    You also when talking about retail need to understand why people purchase stuff online and it's usually for reasons where the high street could never compete.

    Only after that can you start talking about how you will give people tax breaks as otherwise it's a question of where are you going to get that £xbn from.

    And there are serious amount of structural issues within our tax system but there isn't any easy solutions as all changes will impact people's behaviour and that might have unintended consequences.
    To be fair one reason why people purchase stuff online is its cheaper - and one reason its cheaper is that online isn't taxed at the same rate that physical transactions are.

    Taxing business transactions via VAT not via location and ensuring online transactions are covered by VAT (which has been worked on in recent years to be fair) ought to cover it. If money is taxed when it changes hands, however it changes hands, then all pay their share equally.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,658
    Can someone tell me which seats Die Linke won? The Guardian interactive map suggests the Greens won the Berlin seats held by Die Linke before the election.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 40,636
    edited September 2021
    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    More bottler news.

    "Don't mention the Sturgeon war! Tory ministers 'are ordered not to talk about Scottish independence' amid fears it just fuels separatist drive
    Ministers told not to engage with SNP or even make a positive case for the union
    They admit it would be 'very hard' for unionists to win new referendum currently
    They want to focus on Sturgeon and SNP's record amid NHS and drug crises"

    https://tinyurl.com/3zjw52ck

    They've certainly maintained an iron discipline on the not making a positive case for the union thing.

    2014 was a once in a generation referendum, they don't need to until a generation has elapsed since then.

    Union matters are reserved to Westminster so as long as this Tory government is in power it can refuse indyref2 and nothing Sturgeon can do about it
    I'm still not clear on whether it's a once in a generation referendum or NEVER for the Tories.
    I suspect you're not clear about this in your own wee noddle, so we share that at least.
    Once in a generation which in my book means about 25 years. But even a stalwart and steadfast Blue Lovely as I aspire to be, would harbour doubts about the party remaining continuously in office until 2039.

    HYFUD talks about a putative (minority) Labour Govt in 2023/4 granting a referendum as a precondition for SNP acquiescence. But I suspect that Sir Keir won't budge and challenge Ian Blackford to vote with the hated Tories to bring his govt down on its Queens Speech.

    Who knows; it's all pretty pointless conjecture at this stage anyway. FWIW - and it ain't worth much I readily concede - my hunch from Surrey Mansions is that the next referendum won't take place before 2030.
    Quebec of course had two referenduns within 15 years: 1980, then 1995.
  • Selebian said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    It may be a good policy but from where are Labour proposing to fill the £10bn or so tax shortfall? I'd like to see some detail on this proposal and as I've said, I'm still open minded on voting for Labour vs not voting at all.
    I'm not.
    Were you ever? Didn't you make HYUFD's true Tory list the other day? :wink:
    I might abstain from voting Tory, but I'm not voting for a party I disagree with even more out of spite.

    That said, I don't view politics as supporting a football team - if the Tories became social democrat and incompetent, and Labour became very dry and sensible, then it might be different.

    However, there is no sign of that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,357
    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    I agree with you that its a good idea, except they've got no clue it seems as to how they would do so. So they're saying it will be done but we're to take it on faith that they'll have a way to do it.

    As it happens I agree that its the beginnings of a good policy, they're at least on the right path! That's something at least and I'll give them credit for that, first time in many years as either in Shadow or in office that Labour's Chancellor spokesperson seems to understand something about the issues in economy.

    But I'll wait before saying its a good policy until the policy is actually formulated and not just "this sounds good" but without details. To be fair though years before the election "this sounds good" but without details is an OK starting point and better than what Labour have had for many years!
    Thanks. As you're broadly sympathetic to the aims, I expect the Tories (yes, I know you're not one) to nick it any time soon.
    I seem to remember when I was drafting a possible policy agenda for SKS that this was one of my suggestions. I think that there is quite a compelling case to try and rebalance the tax demands between bricks and clicks. Shops are not only a good source of employment, they keep our city centres vibrant and are more accessible to the elderly etc.

    But you cannot simply abolish £15bn of tax revenues without having an alternative when we already have an unsustainable deficit. That is just lazy.
    This is the issue here - you need to understand what you plan to tax, why you plan to do so and how you plan to do so.

    You also when talking about retail need to understand why people purchase stuff online and it's usually for reasons where the high street could never compete.

    Only after that can you start talking about how you will give people tax breaks as otherwise it's a question of where are you going to get that £xbn from.

    And there are serious amount of structural issues within our tax system but there isn't any easy solutions as all changes will impact people's behaviour and that might have unintended consequences.
    I would say rather that you need to decide what you are going to spend. Once you have that number you can then start to work out where the goose can be plucked with the minimum amount of hissing.

    But I do agree with the structural problems and they are not straightforward. For example, vast sums are given away in tax reliefs for pensions. This is a major source of inequality in this country and can result in the well paid paying a smaller share of their income than the low paid. But we need to positively encourage more saving so is taxing savings the way to go? Its tricky.
  • Interesting Ipsos-Mori poll with fieldwork dates from 17th to 23rd September showing Starmer and Johnson tied at 38% each on who would make the best PM. The first time in 13 years the Tory has not been in the lead on that question.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,655
    edited September 2021
    You have to laugh. Rayner now says she would be happy to sit down with Boris. I feel sure Boris will tell her to Donnez-moi un break. or some other suitable franglais expression.


    Ydoethur. Where r u when you are needed>>??
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,952

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    More bottler news.

    "Don't mention the Sturgeon war! Tory ministers 'are ordered not to talk about Scottish independence' amid fears it just fuels separatist drive
    Ministers told not to engage with SNP or even make a positive case for the union
    They admit it would be 'very hard' for unionists to win new referendum currently
    They want to focus on Sturgeon and SNP's record amid NHS and drug crises"

    https://tinyurl.com/3zjw52ck

    They've certainly maintained an iron discipline on the not making a positive case for the union thing.

    2014 was a once in a generation referendum, they don't need to until a generation has elapsed since then.

    Union matters are reserved to Westminster so as long as this Tory government is in power it can refuse indyref2 and nothing Sturgeon can do about it
    I'm still not clear on whether it's a once in a generation referendum or NEVER for the Tories.
    I suspect you're not clear about this in your own wee noddle, so we share that at least.
    Once in a generation which in my book means about 25 years. But even a stalwart and steadfast Blue Lovely as I aspire to be, would harbour doubts about the party remaining continuously in office until 2039.

    HYFUD talks about a putative (minority) Labour Govt in 2023/4 granting a referendum as a precondition for SNP acquiescence. But I suspect that Sir Keir won't budge and challenge Ian Blackford to vote with the hated Tories to bring his govt down on its Queens Speech.

    Who knows; it's all pretty pointless conjecture at this stage anyway. FWIW - and it ain't worth much I readily concede - my hunch from Surrey Mansions is that the next referendum won't take place before 2030.
    Quebec of course had two referenda within 15 years: 1980, then 1995.
    Please, two referendums...but point taken: I'm just idly speculating with little conviction.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 40,636
    edited September 2021
    tlg86 said:

    Can someone tell me which seats Die Linke won? The Guardian interactive map suggests the Greens won the Berlin seats held by Die Linke before the election.

    Berlin Treptow-Koepenick and Leipzig II.
    https://www.election.de/cgi-bin/showres_btw21.pl
  • One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.
  • JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    More bottler news.

    "Don't mention the Sturgeon war! Tory ministers 'are ordered not to talk about Scottish independence' amid fears it just fuels separatist drive
    Ministers told not to engage with SNP or even make a positive case for the union
    They admit it would be 'very hard' for unionists to win new referendum currently
    They want to focus on Sturgeon and SNP's record amid NHS and drug crises"

    https://tinyurl.com/3zjw52ck

    They've certainly maintained an iron discipline on the not making a positive case for the union thing.

    2014 was a once in a generation referendum, they don't need to until a generation has elapsed since then.

    Union matters are reserved to Westminster so as long as this Tory government is in power it can refuse indyref2 and nothing Sturgeon can do about it
    I'm still not clear on whether it's a once in a generation referendum or NEVER for the Tories.
    I suspect you're not clear about this in your own wee noddle, so we share that at least.
    Once in a generation which in my book means about 25 years. But even a stalwart and steadfast Blue Lovely as I aspire to be, would harbour doubts about the party remaining continuously in office until 2039.

    HYFUD talks about a putative (minority) Labour Govt in 2023/4 granting a referendum as a precondition for SNP acquiescence. But I suspect that Sir Keir won't budge and challenge Ian Blackford to vote with the hated Tories to bring his govt down on its Queens Speech.

    Who knows; it's all pretty pointless conjecture at this stage anyway. FWIW - and it ain't worth much I readily concede - my hunch from Surrey Mansions is that the next referendum won't take place before 2030.
    Quebec of course had two referendums within 15 years: 1980, then 1995.
    Please, two referendums...but point taken: I'm just idly speculating with little conviction.
    Of course, of course! I was just channelling TSE :)
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,535
    DavidL said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Mr. Farooq, electoral communism is a contradiction in terms.

    It is an analogy to the oft-repeated truism that communism work in theory but not in practice, not a reflection of whether democracy and communism are compatible (they are not).
    Except FPTP works in theory and in practice.
    Yes, you're right, it does. That's why British politics has been so smooth and trouble free lately.
    Absolutely it has. We've been able to get through transformations in our politics and our economy via ballots not violence, as we have on the mainland for centuries. Democracy works in this country.

    Even when the Tories made the awful mistake of making May PM the system worked, denying her a majority and leading to her downfall and a far more suitable PM who was able to win a healthy majority.
    I'd disagree with the words 'far more suitable' when applied to our current PM. 'Electorally attractive', perhaps.

    At least May never deliberately misled the Queen.
    She said she was going to run a government.
    Is it possible she was misheard? Could have been 'ruin'.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,700
    edited September 2021
    tlg86 said:

    Can someone tell me which seats Die Linke won? The Guardian interactive map suggests the Greens won the Berlin seats held by Die Linke before the election.

    They won one in Leipzig II and two in Berlin. Lichtenberg and Treptow Köpenick. I think Leipzig was a gain.
    The CDU took at least one they previously held as well.
  • pingping Posts: 2,143
    edited September 2021
    Pulpstar said:

    ping said:

    Shell energy take over 255k green energy customers.

    How long until shell also go bust?

    What's the structural link to the big Shell ?
    I assume shell energy is a branding exercise. I think they used to be “first utility” or something. I assume they’re just as likely to go bust as any other small supplier buying energy for more than they can sell it for…

    Having said that, it seems ofgem is bunging them cash to take on greens customers, to be recovered from a levy on everyone’s energy bills from April 2022 onwards.

    Doesn’t seem very fair to me. They should just ditch the cap and charge me (and all the other green customers) the market rate.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,952

    JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    More bottler news.

    "Don't mention the Sturgeon war! Tory ministers 'are ordered not to talk about Scottish independence' amid fears it just fuels separatist drive
    Ministers told not to engage with SNP or even make a positive case for the union
    They admit it would be 'very hard' for unionists to win new referendum currently
    They want to focus on Sturgeon and SNP's record amid NHS and drug crises"

    https://tinyurl.com/3zjw52ck

    They've certainly maintained an iron discipline on the not making a positive case for the union thing.

    2014 was a once in a generation referendum, they don't need to until a generation has elapsed since then.

    Union matters are reserved to Westminster so as long as this Tory government is in power it can refuse indyref2 and nothing Sturgeon can do about it
    I'm still not clear on whether it's a once in a generation referendum or NEVER for the Tories.
    I suspect you're not clear about this in your own wee noddle, so we share that at least.
    Once in a generation which in my book means about 25 years. But even a stalwart and steadfast Blue Lovely as I aspire to be, would harbour doubts about the party remaining continuously in office until 2039.

    HYFUD talks about a putative (minority) Labour Govt in 2023/4 granting a referendum as a precondition for SNP acquiescence. But I suspect that Sir Keir won't budge and challenge Ian Blackford to vote with the hated Tories to bring his govt down on its Queens Speech.

    Who knows; it's all pretty pointless conjecture at this stage anyway. FWIW - and it ain't worth much I readily concede - my hunch from Surrey Mansions is that the next referendum won't take place before 2030.
    Quebec of course had two referendums within 15 years: 1980, then 1995.
    Please, two referendums...but point taken: I'm just idly speculating with little conviction.
    Of course, of course! I was just channelling TSE :)
    When we had our recent Grand Convocation, I'm pretty sure I had a £50 wager with @TSE that there would not be a referendum in this Parliament. But I probably consumed too much bubbly and can't remember!
  • HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    With regard to student loan repayment issue; it is worth reflecting on how we got in to this mess. Many people on here view the coalition years (2010-2015) as a glorious example of strong and mature government. My view to the contrary is that this was the worst government in living history.

    The student loans are nothing but a con. The degree courses people were directed in to going on, at £9k per annum to go on were, in a very, very large number of cases, completely and utterly useless and a waste of 3 years of young peoples lives when they could have been doing something economically productive instead. The con gets worse when one looks at the repayment system. The absolute scandal is the interest rates, they are set at RPI, which is 1.5%, not the actual bank of england interest rate which is 0.1%. The interest rate increases to 4.5% when students start earning any significant salary. It is effectively a system of cynical exploitation of young people.

    There is a lot of anger about this, it is the one policy area where it is possible to sympathise with people like Andrea Rayner.

    So, between 1.5% and 4.5% for unsecured personal debt, where repayments are automatically paused in the event of unemployment, is a bad deal?

    And, don't people who choose to do degrees in Film Studies bear some responsibility for their choices? Or do only you get to choose?
    For all of the flap, the change in tuition fees was a positive step in allowing poorer students access. Instead of fees up front it was hypothecated fees when earning.

    The issue was funding for universities. With the government contribution to uni teaching cut by 78%, we've seen institutions both get it in the neck for charging the "maximum" £9k a year and offering poor tuition due to a lack of money.

    Anyway, think what these £9k fees are. Instead of the government handing money to the universities, it hands it to student loans who pay it to universities. We know that in this era of bankism debt is an asset. How much "asset" was added to bank balance sheets in this way? a very quiet way to keep injecting cash into a broken banking system.
    And the funding comes down to the idea that 50% of kids need to go to university. IMV that was always an insane target, and has massively skewed expectations, education and the jobs market.

    IMV everything else leads on from that.
    Except that sort of figure for Tertiary education is the norm in nearly all competitor economies. It reaches 69% in South Korea. Italy and Germany are the exceptions in the developed world.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_education_attainment

    Maybe Britons are thicker than other nations, but that doesn't bode well for the future.

    The problem perhaps is more the poor quality of many courses, particularly in terms of contact time with students, so little value added.

    I think that the cost of Tertiary education is quite inflated in Britain by two factors: Universities use undergraduate fees to subsidise other things, and second that British students want to live a good lifestyle away from home. Few go to nearby Universities. The student loan system barely covers rent, and not even close to that in London and a number of other cities.
    Except tertiary education != universities. From your link;

    " The World Bank, for example, defines tertiary education as including universities as well as institutions that teach specific capacities of higher learning such as colleges, technical training institutes, community colleges, nursing schools, research laboratories, centers of excellence, and distance learning centers."

    That's where we're going wrong. Universities are just one strand of tertiary education, and yet they've grown to dominate. We'd be much better sorted with other types as well, in particular on-job training.
    That is pretty much what I said. The problem is not the numbers going, but rather the poor quality of much British Tertiary education, and the emphasis on a partying life away from home.
    I'm unsure it is. I talked about he goal of 50% to university, and you talked about tertiary education. These are not, and should not be, the same.

    We need plumbers. I see no need for plumbers to go to university; they'd be much better served with an apprenticeship and then a C&G. We have too much university, and not enough apprenticeships and other further education.
    One of my brother-in-laws did a three-year technical course in welding at an Irish Institute of Technology. He has plenty of work and a big new house.

    My impression is that apprenticeships and C&G in Britain simply aren't working as well as the Irish system. Maybe it's a prestige/class thing? In the same family they have a physics PhD, a music Masters and an MBA - there's no sense that the welder has fallen short as there might be with a British middle class family.
    This is another area where the UK's insistence of a uni degree is wrong. If you don't get one, you have somehow failed. And our ability to look down our noses at people based not on their value, but on whether or not they hold a certain piece of paper.

    But in the meantime, the increased numbers going to uni have devalued that piece of paper.
    Yet the figures are clear, Higher apprentices at level 5 or above earn more over their lifetimes on average than all graduates except those who attended a Russell Group university. They also don't pay tuition fees unlike their student counterparts.
    https://onefile.co.uk/explore/which-is-better-university-degrees-or-higher-apprenticeships/

    So apprentices can cope with the snobbery given their higher bank balances and the fact many can buy a property in their 20s or early 30s (certainly outside London and the South East) unlike most students
    Indeed. So why drive kids down the uni route when it won't gain them much? Why 50%? why not 40%? 30%? 20%?

    It's a random figure plucked out of Blair's backside because it sounds good. Yet even if it was based on evidence, then there should have been another policy about further education opportunities for those who did not go.

    My nephew got the grades to go into uni, but chose to get a job. He's worked hard, and is on a salary much greater than his friends who went. He's probably worked harder than them, and has no student debts. Yet if he was in certain industries, there would be a barrier - a paper ceiling - through which he could not burst. Sometimes that ceiling may be necessary - science, for instance. In most it is not.

    Fortunately he's chosen an industry where that is less likely.
    Elder son encountered the glass ceiling to which you refer a couple of years after finishing his apprenticeship. It so incensed him that he sought, and got, a Uni place and went on to have a very successful career in a very challenging industry.
    He's just left, as a result of re-organisation, with a substantial leaving package and a contacts book which will ensure he won't have to touch his savings until such time as he doesn't want to work at all.
    Yes, going to uni later can be a good option. Someone may know what industry they want to be in, and have experience relevant to the degree. The only downside is doing without your salary for a few years...
  • eekeek Posts: 18,825
    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    I agree with you that its a good idea, except they've got no clue it seems as to how they would do so. So they're saying it will be done but we're to take it on faith that they'll have a way to do it.

    As it happens I agree that its the beginnings of a good policy, they're at least on the right path! That's something at least and I'll give them credit for that, first time in many years as either in Shadow or in office that Labour's Chancellor spokesperson seems to understand something about the issues in economy.

    But I'll wait before saying its a good policy until the policy is actually formulated and not just "this sounds good" but without details. To be fair though years before the election "this sounds good" but without details is an OK starting point and better than what Labour have had for many years!
    Thanks. As you're broadly sympathetic to the aims, I expect the Tories (yes, I know you're not one) to nick it any time soon.
    I seem to remember when I was drafting a possible policy agenda for SKS that this was one of my suggestions. I think that there is quite a compelling case to try and rebalance the tax demands between bricks and clicks. Shops are not only a good source of employment, they keep our city centres vibrant and are more accessible to the elderly etc.

    But you cannot simply abolish £15bn of tax revenues without having an alternative when we already have an unsustainable deficit. That is just lazy.
    This is the issue here - you need to understand what you plan to tax, why you plan to do so and how you plan to do so.

    You also when talking about retail need to understand why people purchase stuff online and it's usually for reasons where the high street could never compete.

    Only after that can you start talking about how you will give people tax breaks as otherwise it's a question of where are you going to get that £xbn from.

    And there are serious amount of structural issues within our tax system but there isn't any easy solutions as all changes will impact people's behaviour and that might have unintended consequences.
    But the first part of the policy ought to make it easier to repurpose high street properties large numbers of which are just sitting vacant.
    repurposed to do what?

    Central Leeds has buildings repurposed to be bars and 10 pin bowling alleys. If you want to make housing it switches to council tax.


  • ping said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ping said:

    Shell energy take over 255k green energy customers.

    How long until shell also go bust?

    What's the structural link to the big Shell ?
    I assume shell energy is a branding exercise. I think they used to be “first utility” or something. I assume they’re just as likely to go bust as any other small supplier buying energy for less than they sell it for…
    I'd be surprised if big Shell allowed their brand name to be used by a retail company without an association - and I'd be surprised if they allowed their brand to go bust. If Avro go bust that's the end of the matter, but it'd be bad PR for Shell to go bust.
  • DavidL said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    I agree with you that its a good idea, except they've got no clue it seems as to how they would do so. So they're saying it will be done but we're to take it on faith that they'll have a way to do it.

    As it happens I agree that its the beginnings of a good policy, they're at least on the right path! That's something at least and I'll give them credit for that, first time in many years as either in Shadow or in office that Labour's Chancellor spokesperson seems to understand something about the issues in economy.

    But I'll wait before saying its a good policy until the policy is actually formulated and not just "this sounds good" but without details. To be fair though years before the election "this sounds good" but without details is an OK starting point and better than what Labour have had for many years!
    Thanks. As you're broadly sympathetic to the aims, I expect the Tories (yes, I know you're not one) to nick it any time soon.
    I seem to remember when I was drafting a possible policy agenda for SKS that this was one of my suggestions. I think that there is quite a compelling case to try and rebalance the tax demands between bricks and clicks. Shops are not only a good source of employment, they keep our city centres vibrant and are more accessible to the elderly etc.

    But you cannot simply abolish £15bn of tax revenues without having an alternative when we already have an unsustainable deficit. That is just lazy.
    This is the issue here - you need to understand what you plan to tax, why you plan to do so and how you plan to do so.

    You also when talking about retail need to understand why people purchase stuff online and it's usually for reasons where the high street could never compete.

    Only after that can you start talking about how you will give people tax breaks as otherwise it's a question of where are you going to get that £xbn from.

    And there are serious amount of structural issues within our tax system but there isn't any easy solutions as all changes will impact people's behaviour and that might have unintended consequences.
    I would say rather that you need to decide what you are going to spend. Once you have that number you can then start to work out where the goose can be plucked with the minimum amount of hissing.

    But I do agree with the structural problems and they are not straightforward. For example, vast sums are given away in tax reliefs for pensions. This is a major source of inequality in this country and can result in the well paid paying a smaller share of their income than the low paid. But we need to positively encourage more saving so is taxing savings the way to go? Its tricky.
    Fundamentally, it comes down to maximising the number of people in work for as long as possible (earning money and paying tax) and minimising the economically inactive (not earning money and not paying tax but drawing state services on top).

    So logically, most Government policies should be focussed on encouraging and sustaining the workforce.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 759
    edited September 2021

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    The simplest way to do that would be to eliminate the VAT threshold of course. (as is the case on most of the continent).

    TBH eliminating most of the get out clauses from VAT would get rid of a lot of ludicrous shenanigans & put many accountants out of work which could only be a good thing.

    (politically this would cause an awful lot of squawking, so it probably won’t happen.)
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 51,464
    edited September 2021
    Steamer should feel very uncomfortable listening to Rachel Reeves speech as she is far ahead of any of them
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,198
    Selebian said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    OK, so where is the £15bn as it won't be coming from Amazon and co as Labour hasn't yet devised a means of collecting £15bn in tax from them.
    I'm sure you and others will be listening to Rachel Reeves shortly. At this stage of the electoral cycle, it wouldn't be sensible to say precisely where the money's coming from, because things change. It will be in the manifesto in time for the next GE campaign.
    I listened to Rachel a couple of times this weekend and her interview with Nick Robinson is worth watching on catch up

    At school she won a British under 14 girls chess championship and her cv dwarfs the shadow cabinet with time at the Bank of England, British Embassy in Washington and HBOS

    Labour should be falling over backwards to promote her to leader, she may even attract me to her policies but labour have to divest themselves of a lot of nonsense first
    I haven't listened, but will - thank you.

    Did she spend a lot of time going on about how awful the Tories are or did she set out the problems facing the country and broad ideas on how to address them and/or a vision for where to get to? If it's worth listening to, then I suspect the latter.

    She's incredibly boring and lacks revolutionary zeal. She's exactly the type of person a never-labour voter would think would make a good leader of the Labour Party.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,700
    Ps. If you want an interactive map of all the German results, try this one.

    https://www.election.de/cgi-bin/showres_btw21.pl
  • Phil said:

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    The simplest way to do that would be to eliminate the VAT threshold of course. (as is the case on most of the continent).

    TBH eliminating most of the get out clauses from VAT would get rid of a lot of ludicrous shenanigans & put many accountants out of work which could only be a good thing.
    The threshold is sensible at some levels, if someone is setting up a small business then it doesn't make much sense to be fiddling about with VAT. Plus they'll be paying VAT when they buy supplies and not be able to reclaim it as a result of not being registered so its not much of a difference.

    But all online platforms have met the threshold. If I buy from Debenhams then Debenhams charge me VAT and reclaim any VAT they've paid their suppliers - if their suppliers aren't VAT registered then there'll be no VAT to reclaim for them but still a full charge for the consumer.

    Online platforms should operate exactly the same as retail ones. Amazon, eBay etc should be liable to pay VAT on every transaction they sell to us, and then be on their responsibility to reclaim VAT they pay to their suppliers. Just as physical retailers have to do.
  • eekeek Posts: 18,825
    edited September 2021

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    Unless the company is a startup UK company that issue has already been fixed - as part of the new VAT rules that were introduced back in January. I've just checked my last few purchases:-

    Stuff from China firms has VAT being charged by Amazon Services Europe (GB Vat number)
    Stuff from UK firms has VAT being charged by the UK firm.

    And in the cases that remain, Amazon is just a combination of payment and market stall provider to a very small UK business.

    The same is true for ebay, so I've stopped bidding on European items as you end up paying 20% vat on top of the purchase price...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,143
    edited September 2021

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    Yes, the small company exemption shouldn’t apply to ‘platform’ sales, only to direct sales. That was an Uber and eBay trick that Amazon copied. If the small business is not VAT registered, then the platform should pay the full 20% to the Treasury.

    Many of these small businesses are actually larger businesses, running a new company every few months, purely to stay below the VAT limit. Same with the fake taxi apps.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,209

    ping said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ping said:

    Shell energy take over 255k green energy customers.

    How long until shell also go bust?

    What's the structural link to the big Shell ?
    I assume shell energy is a branding exercise. I think they used to be “first utility” or something. I assume they’re just as likely to go bust as any other small supplier buying energy for less than they sell it for…
    I'd be surprised if big Shell allowed their brand name to be used by a retail company without an association - and I'd be surprised if they allowed their brand to go bust. If Avro go bust that's the end of the matter, but it'd be bad PR for Shell to go bust.
    It's owned by Shell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Energy
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,027
    edited September 2021
    MattW said:

    On the German election, I believe there was an advisory referendum in Berlin on requisitioning apartments owned by mega landlords to turn in to social housing, won pretty conclusively by the requisitioners. Any of the German experts know if any action will result from this?

    Looking at the wiki page for the Berlin state election pretty amazing to see that die Linke were leading the polls a year ago.

    Tweet @jonworth on that.

    Die Grune member and lives in Berlin.
    Thanks, I actually follow Worth but obviously I wasn't paying enough attention to my twitter feed. He seems relatively cheerful about the results though I can't see any references to the property referendum.

    One of his rts:

    Ned Richardson-Little
    @HistoryNed
    47m
    UK media deftly shifting from "Queen Merkel, autocrat of EU trade policy, will bail us out" to "King Olaf, lord of the EU truckers, will save us."

    https://twitter.com/HistoryNed/status/1442438777822191616?s=20
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,357

    Steamer should feel very uncomfortable listening to Rachel Reeves speech as she is far ahead of any of them

    It was a good call by him to replace his shadow Chancellor. He needs to build a potential government and needs help. A credible Shadow Chancellor is absolutely key to that as Blair showed in 1997.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 51,464
    edited September 2021
    A star is born

    Will Labour realise it
  • PhilPhil Posts: 759

    Phil said:

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    The simplest way to do that would be to eliminate the VAT threshold of course. (as is the case on most of the continent).

    TBH eliminating most of the get out clauses from VAT would get rid of a lot of ludicrous shenanigans & put many accountants out of work which could only be a good thing.
    The threshold is sensible at some levels, if someone is setting up a small business then it doesn't make much sense to be fiddling about with VAT. Plus they'll be paying VAT when they buy supplies and not be able to reclaim it as a result of not being registered so its not much of a difference.

    But all online platforms have met the threshold. If I buy from Debenhams then Debenhams charge me VAT and reclaim any VAT they've paid their suppliers - if their suppliers aren't VAT registered then there'll be no VAT to reclaim for them but still a full charge for the consumer.

    Online platforms should operate exactly the same as retail ones. Amazon, eBay etc should be liable to pay VAT on every transaction they sell to us, and then be on their responsibility to reclaim VAT they pay to their suppliers. Just as physical retailers have to do.
    I assumed from the OP’s comment that there was some way for small sellers to avoid charging VAT through Amazon, so some were exploiting this by setting up a rolling sequence of small companies.

    But maybe this is not a plausible exploit of the tax system? It would depend on whether Amazon was acting as seller or merely as third party payment handler for non-Amazon sales on the Amazon platform.
  • eek said:

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    Unless the company is a startup UK company that issue has already been fixed - as part of the new VAT rules that were introduced back in January.

    And in the cases that remain, Amazon is just a combination of payment and market stall provider to a very small UK business.
    Amazon are not a stall provider, they're a retailer. They should be liable to every bit as much tax for anything they retail every bit as much as any transaction that went through the tills at Debenhams would.

    When Debenhams were trading they'd have clothes divided by brand etc in little 'stalls' but none of them would be VAT exempt since Debenhams were retailer for all of them. Just as Amazon are for everything I buy from them.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,952
    I don't think the latest IPSOS MORI VI have been published here

    Cons 39 (down 2) since August
    Lab 36 (up 6)
    LDs 9 (down 4)
  • eekeek Posts: 18,825
    edited September 2021

    eek said:

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    Unless the company is a startup UK company that issue has already been fixed - as part of the new VAT rules that were introduced back in January.

    And in the cases that remain, Amazon is just a combination of payment and market stall provider to a very small UK business.
    Amazon are not a stall provider, they're a retailer. They should be liable to every bit as much tax for anything they retail every bit as much as any transaction that went through the tills at Debenhams would.

    When Debenhams were trading they'd have clothes divided by brand etc in little 'stalls' but none of them would be VAT exempt since Debenhams were retailer for all of them. Just as Amazon are for everything I buy from them.
    No Amazon are both a retailer (anything amazon sells direct) and a market stall provider (everything that is not sold by Amazon directly).

    The fact you haven't noticed that fact means you haven't paid much attention to how Amazon actually works...
  • Phil said:

    Phil said:

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    The simplest way to do that would be to eliminate the VAT threshold of course. (as is the case on most of the continent).

    TBH eliminating most of the get out clauses from VAT would get rid of a lot of ludicrous shenanigans & put many accountants out of work which could only be a good thing.
    The threshold is sensible at some levels, if someone is setting up a small business then it doesn't make much sense to be fiddling about with VAT. Plus they'll be paying VAT when they buy supplies and not be able to reclaim it as a result of not being registered so its not much of a difference.

    But all online platforms have met the threshold. If I buy from Debenhams then Debenhams charge me VAT and reclaim any VAT they've paid their suppliers - if their suppliers aren't VAT registered then there'll be no VAT to reclaim for them but still a full charge for the consumer.

    Online platforms should operate exactly the same as retail ones. Amazon, eBay etc should be liable to pay VAT on every transaction they sell to us, and then be on their responsibility to reclaim VAT they pay to their suppliers. Just as physical retailers have to do.
    I assumed from the OP’s comment that there was some way for small sellers to avoid charging VAT through Amazon, so some were exploiting this by setting up a rolling sequence of small companies.

    But maybe this is not a plausible exploit of the tax system? It would depend on whether Amazon was acting as seller or merely as third party payment handler for non-Amazon sales on the Amazon platform.
    If they're sales on their platform then they're not merely a third party payment handler. They're the retailer too.

    If the results are coming up on their website, using their search engine, and going through their till then how have they not retailed it to me? Its a trick bricks and mortar don't use, that I've ever seen.
  • JohnO said:

    I don't think the latest IPSOS MORI VI have been published here

    Cons 39 (down 2) since August
    Lab 36 (up 6)
    LDs 9 (down 4)

    I would be surprised if RedfieldWilton's poll tonight does not cross over
  • JohnO said:

    I don't think the latest IPSOS MORI VI have been published here

    Cons 39 (down 2) since August
    Lab 36 (up 6)
    LDs 9 (down 4)

    Starmer and Johnson level on best PM, too.

    The fieldwork dates are also interesting - 17th to 23rd September.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    This is completely different to 2000. In 2000 there was actually a shortage for weeks and stations were NOT being refilled.

    There is no shortage here other that irresponsible idiots shouting fire when there wasn't one, creating an artificial one.

    There's not even a shortage of drivers. The fuel companies have all said they're doing extra routes this week to compensate for the panic buying.

    This is just madness. This is Sparta.

    You forgot to add that there aren’t any tanks in Baghdad either? ;)

    Just wait until we get on to no turkeys and no toys……
    Why would there be no toys? You can get any toy you want next day delivered. Most of our Christmas shopping is hidden in our cupboards already.
    You’ve panic bought already? Lol.

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/schools-family/3493379/christmas-shortages-will-this-toy-story-have-a-happy-ending/
    No panic buying, just buying through the year as we have always done. You pay more if you buy at Christmas.

    Eg my eldest daughter's main present we are giving her this year is going to be the Lego Harry Potter Great Hall. Normally £90, but a couple of months ago Amazon had it for £45 as a 24 hour flash sale. Why not buy it then?

    She's really into both Lego and Harry Potter. I can't imagine that changing in the next three months.
    Your daughter obviously isn’t as good at mine at sniffing out Christmas presents bought early….
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    Unless the company is a startup UK company that issue has already been fixed - as part of the new VAT rules that were introduced back in January.

    And in the cases that remain, Amazon is just a combination of payment and market stall provider to a very small UK business.
    Amazon are not a stall provider, they're a retailer. They should be liable to every bit as much tax for anything they retail every bit as much as any transaction that went through the tills at Debenhams would.

    When Debenhams were trading they'd have clothes divided by brand etc in little 'stalls' but none of them would be VAT exempt since Debenhams were retailer for all of them. Just as Amazon are for everything I buy from them.
    No Amazon are both a retailer (anything amazon sells direct) and a market stall provider (everything that is not sold by Amazon directly).

    The fact you haven't noticed that fact means you haven't paid much attention to how Amazon actually works...
    No the fact I haven't noticed [I have actually] means that they're not "just" a stall provider.

    They're the retailer. Whether its coming from them direct, or they're an intermediary, either way they're the retailer. They should be forced to record VAT on every single sale that goes through their platform without exception - if it goes through a separate platform that's beneath the threshold that's different, but if its coming up on their platform, using their search engine, on their website or app and paid for using their checkout then they're the retailer by any meaningful definition.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,236
    Selebian said:

    Cookie said:

    From my observations, any panic that there was in GM is already over. I filled up on Saturday - there was a queue of five minutes or so, but only for cars with pumps on their right. The left hand pumps were all free. Which made me think the problem was more a case of an imbalance of left- and right-handed pump cars turning up at the same time.

    How does the left vs right thing work? Do manufacturers do a 50:50 split across each model, or do they make all cars within the same model either left or right to reduce costs? Presumably there is some goal to even the numbers out?
    We have the same car as our previous car (but 8 years newer) and the fuel inlet has switched from right to left - the source of much confusion the first few times I filled up the new car.
    My wife pointed out to me (after I asked her for the nth time which side the filler was on the family car) that the fuel gauge has a little arrow telling you which side. That's a Ford, was also the case in another Ford we used to have, but I'm not sure whether all cars have that.

    In most fuel stations the hoses are long enough to fill up on either side, particularly if you pull forwards a bit (never as comfortable on the far side, but normally very doable). You do have to accept everyone else looks at you as the idiot who forgot which side the filler cap was, but you don't have to queue so long.
    Yes, all cars have them. I had been driving for over 20 years before I realised that.

    In the garage I was in on Saturday, some did break ranks and fill up from the 'wrong' side - but I think most of us thought the extra wait was worth the not-looking-a-bit-awkward.

  • PhilPhil Posts: 759

    eek said:

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    Unless the company is a startup UK company that issue has already been fixed - as part of the new VAT rules that were introduced back in January.

    And in the cases that remain, Amazon is just a combination of payment and market stall provider to a very small UK business.
    Amazon are not a stall provider, they're a retailer. They should be liable to every bit as much tax for anything they retail every bit as much as any transaction that went through the tills at Debenhams would.

    When Debenhams were trading they'd have clothes divided by brand etc in little 'stalls' but none of them would be VAT exempt since Debenhams were retailer for all of them. Just as Amazon are for everything I buy from them.
    Everything is shades of grey in law though. Some things are obviously on one side of the line & some things are ... well it’s not clear.

    Eg, obviously the owner of the building where a market occurs is not responsbile for collecting VAT for market vendors, but if the market owner buys goods from vendors and sells them on then they clearly are liable. What if the owner rents space to vendors and handles payment infrastructure for them - are they liable for VAT then? What if the owner is a bank who happens to own the market as part of a property portfolio but also handles payments for all the vendors? Is that the same, or is it different?

    Out of such edge cases are tax law made....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,143
    Phil said:

    Phil said:

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    The simplest way to do that would be to eliminate the VAT threshold of course. (as is the case on most of the continent).

    TBH eliminating most of the get out clauses from VAT would get rid of a lot of ludicrous shenanigans & put many accountants out of work which could only be a good thing.
    The threshold is sensible at some levels, if someone is setting up a small business then it doesn't make much sense to be fiddling about with VAT. Plus they'll be paying VAT when they buy supplies and not be able to reclaim it as a result of not being registered so its not much of a difference.

    But all online platforms have met the threshold. If I buy from Debenhams then Debenhams charge me VAT and reclaim any VAT they've paid their suppliers - if their suppliers aren't VAT registered then there'll be no VAT to reclaim for them but still a full charge for the consumer.

    Online platforms should operate exactly the same as retail ones. Amazon, eBay etc should be liable to pay VAT on every transaction they sell to us, and then be on their responsibility to reclaim VAT they pay to their suppliers. Just as physical retailers have to do.
    I assumed from the OP’s comment that there was some way for small sellers to avoid charging VAT through Amazon, so some were exploiting this by setting up a rolling sequence of small companies.

    But maybe this is not a plausible exploit of the tax system? It would depend on whether Amazon was acting as seller or merely as third party payment handler for non-Amazon sales on the Amazon platform.
    Yes. There’s a court case against Uber working its way through at the moment. If the government wins, the award will be something like £1.5bn in historic VAT payments not collected by the fake taxi firm.

    The government are saying that if you take the money, and set both the price to the consumer and the payment to the service provider, you’re liable for the VAT on the fare. Uber are saying that they are just a platform, that processes payments for a number of small businesses who are not VAT registered.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    With regard to student loan repayment issue; it is worth reflecting on how we got in to this mess. Many people on here view the coalition years (2010-2015) as a glorious example of strong and mature government. My view to the contrary is that this was the worst government in living history.

    The student loans are nothing but a con. The degree courses people were directed in to going on, at £9k per annum to go on were, in a very, very large number of cases, completely and utterly useless and a waste of 3 years of young peoples lives when they could have been doing something economically productive instead. The con gets worse when one looks at the repayment system. The absolute scandal is the interest rates, they are set at RPI, which is 1.5%, not the actual bank of england interest rate which is 0.1%. The interest rate increases to 4.5% when students start earning any significant salary. It is effectively a system of cynical exploitation of young people.

    There is a lot of anger about this, it is the one policy area where it is possible to sympathise with people like Andrea Rayner.

    So, between 1.5% and 4.5% for unsecured personal debt, where repayments are automatically paused in the event of unemployment, is a bad deal?

    And, don't people who choose to do degrees in Film Studies bear some responsibility for their choices? Or do only you get to choose?
    Why should eg a successful middle aged lawyer or businessman who owns their own home be on a lower real marginal tax rate than that Film Studies graduate who has a lower income and rent to pay?
    Ooo goodie!

    Why should a middle aged supermarket check out lady subsidise the teenage son of a QC to spend 3 years drinking his way through a film studies degree?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,700

    JohnO said:

    I don't think the latest IPSOS MORI VI have been published here

    Cons 39 (down 2) since August
    Lab 36 (up 6)
    LDs 9 (down 4)

    Starmer and Johnson level on best PM, too.

    The fieldwork dates are also interesting - 17th to 23rd September.

    Yes. That is well before any fuel action.
    Interestingly, Martin Lewis seems to think a Student Loan is a binding contract, not retrospectively changeable at the whim of government. Lawyers are forming up.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,658
    dixiedean said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone tell me which seats Die Linke won? The Guardian interactive map suggests the Greens won the Berlin seats held by Die Linke before the election.

    They won one in Leipzig II and two in Berlin. Lichtenberg and Treptow Köpenick. I think Leipzig was a gain.
    The CDU took at least one they previously held as well.
    Thanks, I was looking at the wrong thing on the Guardian website. I think the three they've won are holds. The Guardian page implies they lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Marzahn_–_Hellersdorf to the CDU and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Pankow to the Greens.

    Not sure what the full result from Leipzig II is, but I suspect they only just hung on to it.
  • A star is born

    Will Labour realise it

    I've fancied Rachel Reeves since many years ago :)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,143
    eek said:

    eek said:

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    Unless the company is a startup UK company that issue has already been fixed - as part of the new VAT rules that were introduced back in January.

    And in the cases that remain, Amazon is just a combination of payment and market stall provider to a very small UK business.
    Amazon are not a stall provider, they're a retailer. They should be liable to every bit as much tax for anything they retail every bit as much as any transaction that went through the tills at Debenhams would.

    When Debenhams were trading they'd have clothes divided by brand etc in little 'stalls' but none of them would be VAT exempt since Debenhams were retailer for all of them. Just as Amazon are for everything I buy from them.
    No Amazon are both a retailer (anything amazon sells direct) and a market stall provider (everything that is not sold by Amazon directly).

    The fact you haven't noticed that fact means you haven't paid much attention to how Amazon actually works...
    If they’re simply providing a market stall, then there won’t be a direct financial relationship with the consumer, who will pay the stall holder directly for whatever they are selling.
  • Phil said:

    eek said:

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    Unless the company is a startup UK company that issue has already been fixed - as part of the new VAT rules that were introduced back in January.

    And in the cases that remain, Amazon is just a combination of payment and market stall provider to a very small UK business.
    Amazon are not a stall provider, they're a retailer. They should be liable to every bit as much tax for anything they retail every bit as much as any transaction that went through the tills at Debenhams would.

    When Debenhams were trading they'd have clothes divided by brand etc in little 'stalls' but none of them would be VAT exempt since Debenhams were retailer for all of them. Just as Amazon are for everything I buy from them.
    Everything is shades of grey in law though. Some things are obviously on one side of the line & some things are ... well it’s not clear.

    Eg, obviously the owner of the building where a market occurs is not responsbile for collecting VAT for market vendors, but if the market owner buys goods from vendors and sells them on then they clearly are liable. What if the owner rents space to vendors and handles payment infrastructure for them - are they liable for VAT then? What if the owner is a bank who happens to own the market as part of a property portfolio but also handles payments for all the vendors? Is that the same, or is it different?

    Out of such edge cases are tax law made....
    Indeed.

    And tax law should be clarified to ensure that all transactions going through online platforms that have gone past the threshold are subject to VAT. Even if the individual supplier to the platform hasn't.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,210
    dixiedean said:

    Ps. If you want an interactive map of all the German results, try this one.

    https://www.election.de/cgi-bin/showres_btw21.pl

    The split is Prussia/Bavaria/NRW.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,535
    edited September 2021
    Dura_Ace said:

    Selebian said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    OK, so where is the £15bn as it won't be coming from Amazon and co as Labour hasn't yet devised a means of collecting £15bn in tax from them.
    I'm sure you and others will be listening to Rachel Reeves shortly. At this stage of the electoral cycle, it wouldn't be sensible to say precisely where the money's coming from, because things change. It will be in the manifesto in time for the next GE campaign.
    I listened to Rachel a couple of times this weekend and her interview with Nick Robinson is worth watching on catch up

    At school she won a British under 14 girls chess championship and her cv dwarfs the shadow cabinet with time at the Bank of England, British Embassy in Washington and HBOS

    Labour should be falling over backwards to promote her to leader, she may even attract me to her policies but labour have to divest themselves of a lot of nonsense first
    I haven't listened, but will - thank you.

    Did she spend a lot of time going on about how awful the Tories are or did she set out the problems facing the country and broad ideas on how to address them and/or a vision for where to get to? If it's worth listening to, then I suspect the latter.

    She's incredibly boring and lacks revolutionary zeal. She's exactly the type of person a never-labour voter would think would make a good leader of the Labour Party.
    Sounds much like Starmer!

    I must admit I can't remember ever having heard her, although I suspect I must have done.

    Edit: And BigG has in fact voted Labour in the past, hasn't he? Or doesn't Blair count?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited September 2021
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    With regard to student loan repayment issue; it is worth reflecting on how we got in to this mess. Many people on here view the coalition years (2010-2015) as a glorious example of strong and mature government. My view to the contrary is that this was the worst government in living history.

    The student loans are nothing but a con. The degree courses people were directed in to going on, at £9k per annum to go on were, in a very, very large number of cases, completely and utterly useless and a waste of 3 years of young peoples lives when they could have been doing something economically productive instead. The con gets worse when one looks at the repayment system. The absolute scandal is the interest rates, they are set at RPI, which is 1.5%, not the actual bank of england interest rate which is 0.1%. The interest rate increases to 4.5% when students start earning any significant salary. It is effectively a system of cynical exploitation of young people.

    There is a lot of anger about this, it is the one policy area where it is possible to sympathise with people like Andrea Rayner.

    So, between 1.5% and 4.5% for unsecured personal debt, where repayments are automatically paused in the event of unemployment, is a bad deal?

    And, don't people who choose to do degrees in Film Studies bear some responsibility for their choices? Or do only you get to choose?
    Why should eg a successful middle aged lawyer or businessman who owns their own home be on a lower real marginal tax rate than that Film Studies graduate who has a lower income and rent to pay?
    Ooo goodie!

    Why should a middle aged supermarket check out lady subsidise the teenage son of a QC to spend 3 years drinking his way through a film studies degree?
    The middle aged supermarket checkout lady shouldn't have much tax to pay but the QC should so its the QC paying for it not the check out lady ultimately.

    I answered your question, now can you answer mine?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,209
    dixiedean said:

    JohnO said:

    I don't think the latest IPSOS MORI VI have been published here

    Cons 39 (down 2) since August
    Lab 36 (up 6)
    LDs 9 (down 4)

    Starmer and Johnson level on best PM, too.

    The fieldwork dates are also interesting - 17th to 23rd September.

    Yes. That is well before any fuel action.
    Interestingly, Martin Lewis seems to think a Student Loan is a binding contract, not retrospectively changeable at the whim of government. Lawyers are forming up.
    Isn't it governed by statue, so Parliament can do what it likes.
  • JohnO said:

    I don't think the latest IPSOS MORI VI have been published here

    Cons 39 (down 2) since August
    Lab 36 (up 6)
    LDs 9 (down 4)

    Big boost for Labour there!
  • Selebian said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Selebian said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    OK, so where is the £15bn as it won't be coming from Amazon and co as Labour hasn't yet devised a means of collecting £15bn in tax from them.
    I'm sure you and others will be listening to Rachel Reeves shortly. At this stage of the electoral cycle, it wouldn't be sensible to say precisely where the money's coming from, because things change. It will be in the manifesto in time for the next GE campaign.
    I listened to Rachel a couple of times this weekend and her interview with Nick Robinson is worth watching on catch up

    At school she won a British under 14 girls chess championship and her cv dwarfs the shadow cabinet with time at the Bank of England, British Embassy in Washington and HBOS

    Labour should be falling over backwards to promote her to leader, she may even attract me to her policies but labour have to divest themselves of a lot of nonsense first
    I haven't listened, but will - thank you.

    Did she spend a lot of time going on about how awful the Tories are or did she set out the problems facing the country and broad ideas on how to address them and/or a vision for where to get to? If it's worth listening to, then I suspect the latter.

    She's incredibly boring and lacks revolutionary zeal. She's exactly the type of person a never-labour voter would think would make a good leader of the Labour Party.
    Sounds much like Starmer!

    I must admit I can't remember ever having heard her, although I suspect I must have done.
    Her conference speech is well worth a listen again on catch up
  • Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    Unless the company is a startup UK company that issue has already been fixed - as part of the new VAT rules that were introduced back in January.

    And in the cases that remain, Amazon is just a combination of payment and market stall provider to a very small UK business.
    Amazon are not a stall provider, they're a retailer. They should be liable to every bit as much tax for anything they retail every bit as much as any transaction that went through the tills at Debenhams would.

    When Debenhams were trading they'd have clothes divided by brand etc in little 'stalls' but none of them would be VAT exempt since Debenhams were retailer for all of them. Just as Amazon are for everything I buy from them.
    No Amazon are both a retailer (anything amazon sells direct) and a market stall provider (everything that is not sold by Amazon directly).

    The fact you haven't noticed that fact means you haven't paid much attention to how Amazon actually works...
    If they’re simply providing a market stall, then there won’t be a direct financial relationship with the consumer, who will pay the stall holder directly for whatever they are selling.
    And if they're merely providing a market stall then that market stall should have its own search engine etc and not be a part of the retailers own search engine.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,658
    Cookie said:

    Selebian said:

    Cookie said:

    From my observations, any panic that there was in GM is already over. I filled up on Saturday - there was a queue of five minutes or so, but only for cars with pumps on their right. The left hand pumps were all free. Which made me think the problem was more a case of an imbalance of left- and right-handed pump cars turning up at the same time.

    How does the left vs right thing work? Do manufacturers do a 50:50 split across each model, or do they make all cars within the same model either left or right to reduce costs? Presumably there is some goal to even the numbers out?
    We have the same car as our previous car (but 8 years newer) and the fuel inlet has switched from right to left - the source of much confusion the first few times I filled up the new car.
    My wife pointed out to me (after I asked her for the nth time which side the filler was on the family car) that the fuel gauge has a little arrow telling you which side. That's a Ford, was also the case in another Ford we used to have, but I'm not sure whether all cars have that.

    In most fuel stations the hoses are long enough to fill up on either side, particularly if you pull forwards a bit (never as comfortable on the far side, but normally very doable). You do have to accept everyone else looks at you as the idiot who forgot which side the filler cap was, but you don't have to queue so long.
    Yes, all cars have them. I had been driving for over 20 years before I realised that.

    In the garage I was in on Saturday, some did break ranks and fill up from the 'wrong' side - but I think most of us thought the extra wait was worth the not-looking-a-bit-awkward.

    If you know how long your car is, filling up from the wrong side is easy.

    But I always quote Partridge when I do it!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,209

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    With regard to student loan repayment issue; it is worth reflecting on how we got in to this mess. Many people on here view the coalition years (2010-2015) as a glorious example of strong and mature government. My view to the contrary is that this was the worst government in living history.

    The student loans are nothing but a con. The degree courses people were directed in to going on, at £9k per annum to go on were, in a very, very large number of cases, completely and utterly useless and a waste of 3 years of young peoples lives when they could have been doing something economically productive instead. The con gets worse when one looks at the repayment system. The absolute scandal is the interest rates, they are set at RPI, which is 1.5%, not the actual bank of england interest rate which is 0.1%. The interest rate increases to 4.5% when students start earning any significant salary. It is effectively a system of cynical exploitation of young people.

    There is a lot of anger about this, it is the one policy area where it is possible to sympathise with people like Andrea Rayner.

    So, between 1.5% and 4.5% for unsecured personal debt, where repayments are automatically paused in the event of unemployment, is a bad deal?

    And, don't people who choose to do degrees in Film Studies bear some responsibility for their choices? Or do only you get to choose?
    Why should eg a successful middle aged lawyer or businessman who owns their own home be on a lower real marginal tax rate than that Film Studies graduate who has a lower income and rent to pay?
    Ooo goodie!

    Why should a middle aged supermarket check out lady subsidise the teenage son of a QC to spend 3 years drinking his way through a film studies degree?
    The middle aged supermarket checkout lady shouldn't have much tax to pay but the QC should so its the QC paying for it not the check out lady ultimately.

    I answered your question, now can you answer mine?
    I'm sure she'd notice when taxes went up to pay for the £8bn or so needed to fund it.
  • tlg86 said:

    dixiedean said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone tell me which seats Die Linke won? The Guardian interactive map suggests the Greens won the Berlin seats held by Die Linke before the election.

    They won one in Leipzig II and two in Berlin. Lichtenberg and Treptow Köpenick. I think Leipzig was a gain.
    The CDU took at least one they previously held as well.
    Thanks, I was looking at the wrong thing on the Guardian website. I think the three they've won are holds. The Guardian page implies they lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Marzahn_–_Hellersdorf to the CDU and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Pankow to the Greens.

    Not sure what the full result from Leipzig II is, but I suspect they only just hung on to it.
    Oops, I forgot to refresh the map, so didn't spot Lichtenberg!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 43,917
    Selebian said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Selebian said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    OK, so where is the £15bn as it won't be coming from Amazon and co as Labour hasn't yet devised a means of collecting £15bn in tax from them.
    I'm sure you and others will be listening to Rachel Reeves shortly. At this stage of the electoral cycle, it wouldn't be sensible to say precisely where the money's coming from, because things change. It will be in the manifesto in time for the next GE campaign.
    I listened to Rachel a couple of times this weekend and her interview with Nick Robinson is worth watching on catch up

    At school she won a British under 14 girls chess championship and her cv dwarfs the shadow cabinet with time at the Bank of England, British Embassy in Washington and HBOS

    Labour should be falling over backwards to promote her to leader, she may even attract me to her policies but labour have to divest themselves of a lot of nonsense first
    I haven't listened, but will - thank you.

    Did she spend a lot of time going on about how awful the Tories are or did she set out the problems facing the country and broad ideas on how to address them and/or a vision for where to get to? If it's worth listening to, then I suspect the latter.

    She's incredibly boring and lacks revolutionary zeal. She's exactly the type of person a never-labour voter would think would make a good leader of the Labour Party.
    Sounds much like Starmer!

    I must admit I can't remember ever having heard her, although I suspect I must have done.

    Edit: And BigG has in fact voted Labour in the past, hasn't he? Or doesn't Blair count?
    Blair? Tory scum....
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,700
    edited September 2021
    tlg86 said:

    dixiedean said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone tell me which seats Die Linke won? The Guardian interactive map suggests the Greens won the Berlin seats held by Die Linke before the election.

    They won one in Leipzig II and two in Berlin. Lichtenberg and Treptow Köpenick. I think Leipzig was a gain.
    The CDU took at least one they previously held as well.
    Thanks, I was looking at the wrong thing on the Guardian website. I think the three they've won are holds. The Guardian page implies they lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Marzahn_–_Hellersdorf to the CDU and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Pankow to the Greens.

    Not sure what the full result from Leipzig II is, but I suspect they only just hung on to it.
    Yeah. It was pretty nip and tuck in the wee small hours. Course they had two chances to get in and for a while it looked like they might do neither. Or both.
    Nevertheless they are the big losers on the night. Woefully underperformed already poor polling. Plus, of course, the Red/Green/Red, unlikely as it was, doesn't work. So they don't even have that tiny influence.
  • geoffw said:

    dixiedean said:

    Ps. If you want an interactive map of all the German results, try this one.

    https://www.election.de/cgi-bin/showres_btw21.pl

    The split is Prussia/Bavaria/NRW.
    Most of NRW was the "Rhenish" part of Prussia.
  • eekeek Posts: 18,825
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    Unless the company is a startup UK company that issue has already been fixed - as part of the new VAT rules that were introduced back in January.

    And in the cases that remain, Amazon is just a combination of payment and market stall provider to a very small UK business.
    Amazon are not a stall provider, they're a retailer. They should be liable to every bit as much tax for anything they retail every bit as much as any transaction that went through the tills at Debenhams would.

    When Debenhams were trading they'd have clothes divided by brand etc in little 'stalls' but none of them would be VAT exempt since Debenhams were retailer for all of them. Just as Amazon are for everything I buy from them.
    No Amazon are both a retailer (anything amazon sells direct) and a market stall provider (everything that is not sold by Amazon directly).

    The fact you haven't noticed that fact means you haven't paid much attention to how Amazon actually works...
    If they’re simply providing a market stall, then there won’t be a direct financial relationship with the consumer, who will pay the stall holder directly for whatever they are selling.
    Amazon processes payment in case the business turns out to be fake say by not delivering the goods, Amazon can repay the customer.

    One big problem we have as a country is that we've spent the last 30 years trying to Jury rig new business models into our existing tax (and other such as employment) laws.

    And we really need to go back and fix these things properly but no one wishes to do so for fixing them will highlight problems that probably aren't fixable.
  • RobD said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    With regard to student loan repayment issue; it is worth reflecting on how we got in to this mess. Many people on here view the coalition years (2010-2015) as a glorious example of strong and mature government. My view to the contrary is that this was the worst government in living history.

    The student loans are nothing but a con. The degree courses people were directed in to going on, at £9k per annum to go on were, in a very, very large number of cases, completely and utterly useless and a waste of 3 years of young peoples lives when they could have been doing something economically productive instead. The con gets worse when one looks at the repayment system. The absolute scandal is the interest rates, they are set at RPI, which is 1.5%, not the actual bank of england interest rate which is 0.1%. The interest rate increases to 4.5% when students start earning any significant salary. It is effectively a system of cynical exploitation of young people.

    There is a lot of anger about this, it is the one policy area where it is possible to sympathise with people like Andrea Rayner.

    So, between 1.5% and 4.5% for unsecured personal debt, where repayments are automatically paused in the event of unemployment, is a bad deal?

    And, don't people who choose to do degrees in Film Studies bear some responsibility for their choices? Or do only you get to choose?
    Why should eg a successful middle aged lawyer or businessman who owns their own home be on a lower real marginal tax rate than that Film Studies graduate who has a lower income and rent to pay?
    Ooo goodie!

    Why should a middle aged supermarket check out lady subsidise the teenage son of a QC to spend 3 years drinking his way through a film studies degree?
    The middle aged supermarket checkout lady shouldn't have much tax to pay but the QC should so its the QC paying for it not the check out lady ultimately.

    I answered your question, now can you answer mine?
    I'm sure she'd notice when taxes went up to pay for the £8bn or so needed to fund it.
    If my proposal that all income were taxed at the same rate regardless of how it was taxed (so merging NI, Income Tax and graduate tax etc together) then her taxes as a worker ought to be able to go down not up. It would be those living on unearned incomes that see their taxes rise to match those of earned incomes.
  • Selebian said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Selebian said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    OK, so where is the £15bn as it won't be coming from Amazon and co as Labour hasn't yet devised a means of collecting £15bn in tax from them.
    I'm sure you and others will be listening to Rachel Reeves shortly. At this stage of the electoral cycle, it wouldn't be sensible to say precisely where the money's coming from, because things change. It will be in the manifesto in time for the next GE campaign.
    I listened to Rachel a couple of times this weekend and her interview with Nick Robinson is worth watching on catch up

    At school she won a British under 14 girls chess championship and her cv dwarfs the shadow cabinet with time at the Bank of England, British Embassy in Washington and HBOS

    Labour should be falling over backwards to promote her to leader, she may even attract me to her policies but labour have to divest themselves of a lot of nonsense first
    I haven't listened, but will - thank you.

    Did she spend a lot of time going on about how awful the Tories are or did she set out the problems facing the country and broad ideas on how to address them and/or a vision for where to get to? If it's worth listening to, then I suspect the latter.

    She's incredibly boring and lacks revolutionary zeal. She's exactly the type of person a never-labour voter would think would make a good leader of the Labour Party.
    Sounds much like Starmer!

    I must admit I can't remember ever having heard her, although I suspect I must have done.

    Edit: And BigG has in fact voted Labour in the past, hasn't he? Or doesn't Blair count?
    Yes for Blair and the only time I have not voted conservative

    I am no longer a member and am open for persuasion but labour have a long way to go after this conference showing ( apart from Rachel)
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,700
    geoffw said:

    dixiedean said:

    Ps. If you want an interactive map of all the German results, try this one.

    https://www.election.de/cgi-bin/showres_btw21.pl

    The split is Prussia/Bavaria/NRW.
    There is a new Red Wall. In fact two. Hinged in the NE.

  • Jessica Elgot
    @jessicaelgot
    ·
    14m
    Labour's had a hammering from activists who say it's not bold enough on climate. It's now pledging it would spend £224bn on tackling the crisis over the next 8 years.
  • Selebian said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Selebian said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    OK, so where is the £15bn as it won't be coming from Amazon and co as Labour hasn't yet devised a means of collecting £15bn in tax from them.
    I'm sure you and others will be listening to Rachel Reeves shortly. At this stage of the electoral cycle, it wouldn't be sensible to say precisely where the money's coming from, because things change. It will be in the manifesto in time for the next GE campaign.
    I listened to Rachel a couple of times this weekend and her interview with Nick Robinson is worth watching on catch up

    At school she won a British under 14 girls chess championship and her cv dwarfs the shadow cabinet with time at the Bank of England, British Embassy in Washington and HBOS

    Labour should be falling over backwards to promote her to leader, she may even attract me to her policies but labour have to divest themselves of a lot of nonsense first
    I haven't listened, but will - thank you.

    Did she spend a lot of time going on about how awful the Tories are or did she set out the problems facing the country and broad ideas on how to address them and/or a vision for where to get to? If it's worth listening to, then I suspect the latter.

    She's incredibly boring and lacks revolutionary zeal. She's exactly the type of person a never-labour voter would think would make a good leader of the Labour Party.
    Sounds much like Starmer!

    I must admit I can't remember ever having heard her, although I suspect I must have done.

    Edit: And BigG has in fact voted Labour in the past, hasn't he? Or doesn't Blair count?
    Like Starmer she has an unfortunate droney voice.
    Not sure if the great British/English voting public is in the mood for sensible centrism delivered in the tones of a bumble bee trapped in a jar.
  • eekeek Posts: 18,825
    edited September 2021

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    Unless the company is a startup UK company that issue has already been fixed - as part of the new VAT rules that were introduced back in January.

    And in the cases that remain, Amazon is just a combination of payment and market stall provider to a very small UK business.
    Amazon are not a stall provider, they're a retailer. They should be liable to every bit as much tax for anything they retail every bit as much as any transaction that went through the tills at Debenhams would.

    When Debenhams were trading they'd have clothes divided by brand etc in little 'stalls' but none of them would be VAT exempt since Debenhams were retailer for all of them. Just as Amazon are for everything I buy from them.
    No Amazon are both a retailer (anything amazon sells direct) and a market stall provider (everything that is not sold by Amazon directly).

    The fact you haven't noticed that fact means you haven't paid much attention to how Amazon actually works...
    If they’re simply providing a market stall, then there won’t be a direct financial relationship with the consumer, who will pay the stall holder directly for whatever they are selling.
    And if they're merely providing a market stall then that market stall should have its own search engine etc and not be a part of the retailers own search engine.
    Let's try this a different way then.

    The Amazon website is a market stall on which the largest single stallholder is a (for historic reasons) a company called Amazon.
  • eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    Unless the company is a startup UK company that issue has already been fixed - as part of the new VAT rules that were introduced back in January.

    And in the cases that remain, Amazon is just a combination of payment and market stall provider to a very small UK business.
    Amazon are not a stall provider, they're a retailer. They should be liable to every bit as much tax for anything they retail every bit as much as any transaction that went through the tills at Debenhams would.

    When Debenhams were trading they'd have clothes divided by brand etc in little 'stalls' but none of them would be VAT exempt since Debenhams were retailer for all of them. Just as Amazon are for everything I buy from them.
    No Amazon are both a retailer (anything amazon sells direct) and a market stall provider (everything that is not sold by Amazon directly).

    The fact you haven't noticed that fact means you haven't paid much attention to how Amazon actually works...
    If they’re simply providing a market stall, then there won’t be a direct financial relationship with the consumer, who will pay the stall holder directly for whatever they are selling.
    Amazon processes payment in case the business turns out to be fake say by not delivering the goods, Amazon can repay the customer.

    One big problem we have as a country is that we've spent the last 30 years trying to Jury rig new business models into our existing tax (and other such as employment) laws.

    And we really need to go back and fix these things properly but no one wishes to do so for fixing them will highlight problems that probably aren't fixable.
    Well precisely because Amazon are the ultimate retailer to the consumer, not whatever name on the hat is supply Amazon.

    Amazon should be taxed as the supplier and they ought to be able to reclaim VAT from their suppliers. Which should be everyone who registers to sell on Amazon.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 43,917
    JohnO said:

    I don't think the latest IPSOS MORI VI have been published here

    Cons 39 (down 2) since August
    Lab 36 (up 6)
    LDs 9 (down 4)

    LibDems lost nearly a third of their vote in one poll???

    That is one hell of a conference anti-bounce.....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,143

    Selebian said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Selebian said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    gealbhan said:

    Labour pledging to scrap business tax? A couple of weeks ago the Tories invented a new tax?

    Anyway, another policy reason to keep Labour out of power, they shouldn’t promise what they can’t deliver. This policy promise is undeliverable. Miles behind the Tories on economic credibility because of big brush strokes fantasy policy like this.

    Labour are focussing on old battles relating to high business rates on the high street.

    In reality it means they now need to find another £15bn to fill alongside the existing holes. Which shows how stupid they are as they are re-opening new battle fronts without paying attention to the existing battle fronts where they could easily win votes.

    I'm getting less and less impressed with the Labour party leadership ever single day.
    I don't agree with you. The aim of Labour's proposals today is to shift the burden of taxation from SMEs that occupy the nation's high streets to digital companies that occupy the nation's phones and computers. One of the major problems in the Red Wall, and elsewhere, is that town centres are dying on their feet, making towns less appealing to live in, and destroying the sense of community. If getting rid of business rates can reverse this trend, this would be 'levelling-up' in action. The playing field between Amazon and high-street retailers needs to be levelled. It's a good policy.
    OK, so where is the £15bn as it won't be coming from Amazon and co as Labour hasn't yet devised a means of collecting £15bn in tax from them.
    I'm sure you and others will be listening to Rachel Reeves shortly. At this stage of the electoral cycle, it wouldn't be sensible to say precisely where the money's coming from, because things change. It will be in the manifesto in time for the next GE campaign.
    I listened to Rachel a couple of times this weekend and her interview with Nick Robinson is worth watching on catch up

    At school she won a British under 14 girls chess championship and her cv dwarfs the shadow cabinet with time at the Bank of England, British Embassy in Washington and HBOS

    Labour should be falling over backwards to promote her to leader, she may even attract me to her policies but labour have to divest themselves of a lot of nonsense first
    I haven't listened, but will - thank you.

    Did she spend a lot of time going on about how awful the Tories are or did she set out the problems facing the country and broad ideas on how to address them and/or a vision for where to get to? If it's worth listening to, then I suspect the latter.

    She's incredibly boring and lacks revolutionary zeal. She's exactly the type of person a never-labour voter would think would make a good leader of the Labour Party.
    Sounds much like Starmer!

    I must admit I can't remember ever having heard her, although I suspect I must have done.

    Edit: And BigG has in fact voted Labour in the past, hasn't he? Or doesn't Blair count?
    Blair? Tory scum....
    2019 Tory Scum
    2017 Tory Scum
    2015 Tory Scum
    2010 Tory Scum
    2005 Tony Blair
    2001 Tony Blair
    1997 Tony Blair
    1992 Tory Scum
    1987 Tory Scum
    1983 Tory Scum
    1979 Tory Scum
    1974 Labour!!!!
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 18,659
    Another of Corbyns 2019 policies goes live today. Free Broadband

    PB Tories called it Communism but today Tory Govt introduces it.

    UK jobseekers are offered six months of free broadband
    Joint TalkTalk and government scheme to tackle digital exclusion gives no-contract uncapped usage
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,799

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    More bottler news.

    "Don't mention the Sturgeon war! Tory ministers 'are ordered not to talk about Scottish independence' amid fears it just fuels separatist drive
    Ministers told not to engage with SNP or even make a positive case for the union
    They admit it would be 'very hard' for unionists to win new referendum currently
    They want to focus on Sturgeon and SNP's record amid NHS and drug crises"

    https://tinyurl.com/3zjw52ck

    They've certainly maintained an iron discipline on the not making a positive case for the union thing.

    2014 was a once in a generation referendum, they don't need to until a generation has elapsed since then.

    Union matters are reserved to Westminster so as long as this Tory government is in power it can refuse indyref2 and nothing Sturgeon can do about it
    I'm still not clear on whether it's a once in a generation referendum or NEVER for the Tories.
    I suspect you're not clear about this in your own wee noddle, so we share that at least.
    Once in a generation which in my book means about 25 years. But even a stalwart and steadfast Blue Lovely as I aspire to be, would harbour doubts about the party remaining continuously in office until 2039.

    HYFUD talks about a putative (minority) Labour Govt in 2023/4 granting a referendum as a precondition for SNP acquiescence. But I suspect that Sir Keir won't budge and challenge Ian Blackford to vote with the hated Tories to bring his govt down on its Queens Speech.

    Who knows; it's all pretty pointless conjecture at this stage anyway. FWIW - and it ain't worth much I readily concede - my hunch from Surrey Mansions is that the next referendum won't take place before 2030.
    Quebec of course had two referenduns within 15 years: 1980, then 1995.
    15 years, not 7 years
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,632
    Interesting reading the comments upthread on the Labour Conference. FWIW in my view it has been pretty successful so far. The big decisions have gone the right way. The noise we have seen is relatively light compared to what bubbles largely unseen under the surface.

    There is time yet for it all to go seriously pear-shaped mind.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,799
    edited September 2021
    geoffw said:

    dixiedean said:

    Ps. If you want an interactive map of all the German results, try this one.

    https://www.election.de/cgi-bin/showres_btw21.pl

    The split is Prussia/Bavaria/NRW.
    Though the Union has clearly still won West Germany on that map, Merkel departing has lost them East Germany however and the SPD made enough gains in the North West of Germany and on the list to win most seats overall
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,596

    eek said:

    eek said:

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    Unless the company is a startup UK company that issue has already been fixed - as part of the new VAT rules that were introduced back in January.

    And in the cases that remain, Amazon is just a combination of payment and market stall provider to a very small UK business.
    Amazon are not a stall provider, they're a retailer. They should be liable to every bit as much tax for anything they retail every bit as much as any transaction that went through the tills at Debenhams would.

    When Debenhams were trading they'd have clothes divided by brand etc in little 'stalls' but none of them would be VAT exempt since Debenhams were retailer for all of them. Just as Amazon are for everything I buy from them.
    No Amazon are both a retailer (anything amazon sells direct) and a market stall provider (everything that is not sold by Amazon directly).

    The fact you haven't noticed that fact means you haven't paid much attention to how Amazon actually works...
    No the fact I haven't noticed [I have actually] means that they're not "just" a stall provider.

    They're the retailer. Whether its coming from them direct, or they're an intermediary, either way they're the retailer. They should be forced to record VAT on every single sale that goes through their platform without exception - if it goes through a separate platform that's beneath the threshold that's different, but if its coming up on their platform, using their search engine, on their website or app and paid for using their checkout then they're the retailer by any meaningful definition.
    Legislating the sort of tax change you are talking about would not be a simple matter at all.
    It's a bit handwavey in a similar manner to Labour's we'll replace rates ideas.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,454
    edited September 2021
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    The cavalier decision making by various governments in the field of energy supply is just astonishing. Here are some examples: our own abandonment of gas storage in 2017, our prospective decommissioning of gas for domestic heating by 2030, the German abandonment of nuclear energy and reliance on gas from Russia while continuing to burn lignite (brown coal) until the mid-2030s.

    I think the proposition that we are going to completely replace tens of millions of gas boilers in houses, shops and offices in 10 years and replace them with heat pumps or something else is nothing short of fantastical. It is simply not going to happen. It may be that by the mid 2030s we might be able to stop burning gas just to produce electricity in power stations but changing our domestic source of energy is going to be impossibly difficult.
    If the roll out of smart meters is any indication then you are correct. It will be 2060 before gas boilers are replaced!
    I've got solar panels and currently get deemed export. The situation as to whether I'd HAVE to go to metered export, and whether that'd be better for me is clear as mud. I might be better off, I have no idea but if I move over I won't be able to move back.
    I've asked both the electric and the FIT company, noone seems to know or care...
    May not help, however..

    Briefly, you need to compare the Feed in Tariff rate (if you get FITs) vs the proffered payment per unit for your alternative electric contract. Then consider the value of the 20 year index linked guaranteed payment on the FIT scheme, and how much of your deemed exported electricity you actually use (if you use say 75% of it - very unusual - any measurement will be below the deemed 50%).

    (If you want to use all of your export you install a divert device such as an "Immersun" which diverts all exported electricity to a load such as a house-battery or a water tank or your slab heating. You still get the "deemed" 50%).

    FIT rates were heavily reduced on Feb 9 2016 (from about 11p to about 4p), and for pv installs before that date sticking with the FIT is a no-brainer imo. Mine got in just before that.

    For PVs after that date, you need to consider as above, and consider 2 way meters and tariffs.

    If your date is after the FIT scheme closed then you have to look around anyway.

    At the moment the export tariffs have aiui a floor level set by the Govt Smart Export Guarantee level.

    eg Bulb Energy have an export tariff of 5.57p/kWh if you are with them for electric, or 3p if you are with somebody else.

    There are special tariffs around, such as the Tesla Energy Plan from Octopus, which charges you ~11p for elec, and pays you ~11p for exports. With a fairly high usage cap. You have to have a Tesla Powerwall and PV panels installed. That is worth a look. Alternatively you can just feed your PV energy into Powerwall with a divert device.

    I get about 13p per export unit index linked, so I am sticking with FIT unless something changed.

    I think once you leave FIT, you can't go back.

    Watch out for misleading marketing which describes an export meter setup as a "Feed in Tariff".

    Does that help?
  • eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    One way to raise revenues from online would be to ensure that all transactions on platforms like Amazon must be subject to VAT. Currently a plethora of tiny companies can crop up on Amazon and are VAT-exempt which isn't possible inside regular shops.

    I believe you can go to Amazon and buy a dress and not have VAT on it, but if you went to Debenhams and bought a dress it must have always had VAT on it.

    If someone wishes to open their own website then fair enough to be VAT-exempt until the threshold is met, just as if they'd opened their own physical store, but to suggest Amazon haven't hit the VAT threshold is insane.

    That's not a level playing field.

    Unless the company is a startup UK company that issue has already been fixed - as part of the new VAT rules that were introduced back in January.

    And in the cases that remain, Amazon is just a combination of payment and market stall provider to a very small UK business.
    Amazon are not a stall provider, they're a retailer. They should be liable to every bit as much tax for anything they retail every bit as much as any transaction that went through the tills at Debenhams would.

    When Debenhams were trading they'd have clothes divided by brand etc in little 'stalls' but none of them would be VAT exempt since Debenhams were retailer for all of them. Just as Amazon are for everything I buy from them.
    No Amazon are both a retailer (anything amazon sells direct) and a market stall provider (everything that is not sold by Amazon directly).

    The fact you haven't noticed that fact means you haven't paid much attention to how Amazon actually works...
    If they’re simply providing a market stall, then there won’t be a direct financial relationship with the consumer, who will pay the stall holder directly for whatever they are selling.
    And if they're merely providing a market stall then that market stall should have its own search engine etc and not be a part of the retailers own search engine.
    Let's try this a different way then.

    The Amazon website is a market stall on which the largest single stallholder is a (for historic reasons) a company called Amazon.
    And Amazon have met the tax threshold so they should be liable for all goods sold via their stall. Which is all goods that come up on their engine etc.

    If they offer up other stalls with their own firewalled search engine, their own products, their own payment processing etc that'd be different. But that's not the case, all goods are mingled together within the same stall to the consumer from Amazon regardless of supplier.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,658
    dixiedean said:

    tlg86 said:

    dixiedean said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone tell me which seats Die Linke won? The Guardian interactive map suggests the Greens won the Berlin seats held by Die Linke before the election.

    They won one in Leipzig II and two in Berlin. Lichtenberg and Treptow Köpenick. I think Leipzig was a gain.
    The CDU took at least one they previously held as well.
    Thanks, I was looking at the wrong thing on the Guardian website. I think the three they've won are holds. The Guardian page implies they lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Marzahn_–_Hellersdorf to the CDU and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Pankow to the Greens.

    Not sure what the full result from Leipzig II is, but I suspect they only just hung on to it.
    Yeah. It was pretty nip and tuck in the wee small hours. Course they had two chances to get in and for a while it looked like they might do neither. Or both.
    Nevertheless they are the big losers on the night. Woefully underperformed already poor polling. Plus, of course, the Red/Green/Red, unlikely as it was, doesn't work. So they don't even have that tiny influence.
    Actually, it wasn't all that close in Leipzig II:

    https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2021/ergebnisse/bund-99/land-14/wahlkreis-153.html
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,908


    Jessica Elgot
    @jessicaelgot
    ·
    14m
    Labour's had a hammering from activists who say it's not bold enough on climate. It's now pledging it would spend £224bn on tackling the crisis over the next 8 years.

    A breakdown of that lot would be good; it's a lot of money. x,000 wind turbines; x,000 metre cubed of additional gas storage. What's the breakdown of the £224 Bn ?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,515

    On the German election, I believe there was an advisory referendum in Berlin on requisitioning apartments owned by mega landlords to turn in to social housing, won pretty conclusively by the requisitioners. Any of the German experts know if any action will result from this?

    Looking at the wiki page for the Berlin state election pretty amazing to see that die Linke were leading the polls a year ago.

    Probably won't happen, there has to be a debate on it, but it is non-binding. Something in English here:
    https://www.dw.com/en/germany-berlin-locals-vote-to-expropriate-real-estate-giants/a-59315431

    I can't see any Berlin state polls with die Linke ahead more recent than April 2019 when they were in a 3-way tie on 19%. To end up on 14% 2+ years later doesn't seem that amazing, but maybe I'm missing something.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,209
    edited September 2021

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    With regard to student loan repayment issue; it is worth reflecting on how we got in to this mess. Many people on here view the coalition years (2010-2015) as a glorious example of strong and mature government. My view to the contrary is that this was the worst government in living history.

    The student loans are nothing but a con. The degree courses people were directed in to going on, at £9k per annum to go on were, in a very, very large number of cases, completely and utterly useless and a waste of 3 years of young peoples lives when they could have been doing something economically productive instead. The con gets worse when one looks at the repayment system. The absolute scandal is the interest rates, they are set at RPI, which is 1.5%, not the actual bank of england interest rate which is 0.1%. The interest rate increases to 4.5% when students start earning any significant salary. It is effectively a system of cynical exploitation of young people.

    There is a lot of anger about this, it is the one policy area where it is possible to sympathise with people like Andrea Rayner.

    So, between 1.5% and 4.5% for unsecured personal debt, where repayments are automatically paused in the event of unemployment, is a bad deal?

    And, don't people who choose to do degrees in Film Studies bear some responsibility for their choices? Or do only you get to choose?
    Why should eg a successful middle aged lawyer or businessman who owns their own home be on a lower real marginal tax rate than that Film Studies graduate who has a lower income and rent to pay?
    Ooo goodie!

    Why should a middle aged supermarket check out lady subsidise the teenage son of a QC to spend 3 years drinking his way through a film studies degree?
    The middle aged supermarket checkout lady shouldn't have much tax to pay but the QC should so its the QC paying for it not the check out lady ultimately.

    I answered your question, now can you answer mine?
    I'm sure she'd notice when taxes went up to pay for the £8bn or so needed to fund it.
    If my proposal that all income were taxed at the same rate regardless of how it was taxed (so merging NI, Income Tax and graduate tax etc together) then her taxes as a worker ought to be able to go down not up. It would be those living on unearned incomes that see their taxes rise to match those of earned incomes.
    Regardless of your tax proposals, she would be paying more tax if the taxpayer had to fund the £8bn a year needed to cover tuition fees.
  • Another of Corbyns 2019 policies goes live today. Free Broadband

    PB Tories called it Communism but today Tory Govt introduces it.

    UK jobseekers are offered six months of free broadband
    Joint TalkTalk and government scheme to tackle digital exclusion gives no-contract uncapped usage

    Six months is not free broadband Corbyn was offering
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,799

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    With regard to student loan repayment issue; it is worth reflecting on how we got in to this mess. Many people on here view the coalition years (2010-2015) as a glorious example of strong and mature government. My view to the contrary is that this was the worst government in living history.

    The student loans are nothing but a con. The degree courses people were directed in to going on, at £9k per annum to go on were, in a very, very large number of cases, completely and utterly useless and a waste of 3 years of young peoples lives when they could have been doing something economically productive instead. The con gets worse when one looks at the repayment system. The absolute scandal is the interest rates, they are set at RPI, which is 1.5%, not the actual bank of england interest rate which is 0.1%. The interest rate increases to 4.5% when students start earning any significant salary. It is effectively a system of cynical exploitation of young people.

    There is a lot of anger about this, it is the one policy area where it is possible to sympathise with people like Andrea Rayner.

    So, between 1.5% and 4.5% for unsecured personal debt, where repayments are automatically paused in the event of unemployment, is a bad deal?

    And, don't people who choose to do degrees in Film Studies bear some responsibility for their choices? Or do only you get to choose?
    Why should eg a successful middle aged lawyer or businessman who owns their own home be on a lower real marginal tax rate than that Film Studies graduate who has a lower income and rent to pay?
    Ooo goodie!

    Why should a middle aged supermarket check out lady subsidise the teenage son of a QC to spend 3 years drinking his way through a film studies degree?
    The middle aged supermarket checkout lady shouldn't have much tax to pay but the QC should so its the QC paying for it not the check out lady ultimately.

    I answered your question, now can you answer mine?
    I'm sure she'd notice when taxes went up to pay for the £8bn or so needed to fund it.
    If my proposal that all income were taxed at the same rate regardless of how it was taxed (so merging NI, Income Tax and graduate tax etc together) then her taxes as a worker ought to be able to go down not up. It would be those living on unearned incomes that see their taxes rise to match those of earned incomes.
    No we need to make NI more distinctive and ensure it is ring fenced to only fund the state pension, healthcare and JSA
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,209


    Jessica Elgot
    @jessicaelgot
    ·
    14m
    Labour's had a hammering from activists who say it's not bold enough on climate. It's now pledging it would spend £224bn on tackling the crisis over the next 8 years.

    When a cool quarter of a trillion pounds in eight years is not enough.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,210

    geoffw said:

    dixiedean said:

    Ps. If you want an interactive map of all the German results, try this one.

    https://www.election.de/cgi-bin/showres_btw21.pl

    The split is Prussia/Bavaria/NRW.
    Most of NRW was the "Rhenish" part of Prussia.
    I missed out the AfD stronghold in Thuringia-Saxony. So a four-way geographic split.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,209
    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    With regard to student loan repayment issue; it is worth reflecting on how we got in to this mess. Many people on here view the coalition years (2010-2015) as a glorious example of strong and mature government. My view to the contrary is that this was the worst government in living history.

    The student loans are nothing but a con. The degree courses people were directed in to going on, at £9k per annum to go on were, in a very, very large number of cases, completely and utterly useless and a waste of 3 years of young peoples lives when they could have been doing something economically productive instead. The con gets worse when one looks at the repayment system. The absolute scandal is the interest rates, they are set at RPI, which is 1.5%, not the actual bank of england interest rate which is 0.1%. The interest rate increases to 4.5% when students start earning any significant salary. It is effectively a system of cynical exploitation of young people.

    There is a lot of anger about this, it is the one policy area where it is possible to sympathise with people like Andrea Rayner.

    So, between 1.5% and 4.5% for unsecured personal debt, where repayments are automatically paused in the event of unemployment, is a bad deal?

    And, don't people who choose to do degrees in Film Studies bear some responsibility for their choices? Or do only you get to choose?
    Why should eg a successful middle aged lawyer or businessman who owns their own home be on a lower real marginal tax rate than that Film Studies graduate who has a lower income and rent to pay?
    Ooo goodie!

    Why should a middle aged supermarket check out lady subsidise the teenage son of a QC to spend 3 years drinking his way through a film studies degree?
    The middle aged supermarket checkout lady shouldn't have much tax to pay but the QC should so its the QC paying for it not the check out lady ultimately.

    I answered your question, now can you answer mine?
    I'm sure she'd notice when taxes went up to pay for the £8bn or so needed to fund it.
    If my proposal that all income were taxed at the same rate regardless of how it was taxed (so merging NI, Income Tax and graduate tax etc together) then her taxes as a worker ought to be able to go down not up. It would be those living on unearned incomes that see their taxes rise to match those of earned incomes.
    No we need to make NI more distinctive and ensure it is ring fenced to only fund the state pension, healthcare and JSA
    I've not read a convincing reason why? If it's about keeping track of the number of years of contributions, you can do that with income tax.
This discussion has been closed.