Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The economics of LICE. How do we deal with parasite taxation ?

13

Comments

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143


    Which basically means we Remain no matter what. With that in place Parliament will never pass any form of deal. It is just as dishonest as a second referendum and will have all the dire consequences.

    No, not at all. She has a majority in Parliament. She merely has to get her party and DUP partners to support her deal. Doesn't seem unreasonable since she has a 13-seat majority.
    No there is a clear majority in Parliament for Remain. Always has been. That is the problem.
    But the majority of Remain-supporting Tory MPs have remained loyal to the PM and would vote for her deal to leave the EU. It's the Leave supporting MPs who are voting against a negotiated exit from the EU.
  • Leavers can have the confidence that in the event that May's deal is voted down in parliament we either get a No Deal or they can ensure that parliamentary candidates in future are selected who support Leave and get Brexit next time round.
  • Polruan said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    I was rather referring to his claim that it is. Generally his predictions have not been well received on here.
    No, it isn't off the table, and nor can Theresa May take it off the table. She can say she doesn't want it to happen, more firmly than she has already said that, but unless and until parliament decides which of the existing deal or cancelling Brexit it does want, rather than what it doesn't want, then No Deal remains a clear and present danger.
    She can take it off the table by bringing forward legislation that says on 29 March 2019 the U.K. will unilaterally revoke its A50 notification unless either a withdrawal agreement has been signed, or the A50 deadline has been extended with the agreement of the EU. If there’s a parliamentary majority in favour of ruling out no deal, that legislation would be passed. If there’s not, it won’t.
    So Parliment just over-rides the referendum...

    Yeah, thats not going to have consquences...
    It might have the consequence of encouraging Leave supporting MPs to vote in favour of a deal that takes us out of the EU. Would that be so bad?
    As I said, there are not enough of them. The majority want to Remain. They are just too cowardly to actually make it happen themselves and want a smoke screen so they can claim to the electorate it wasn't their fault.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,811

    Polruan said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    I was rather referring to his claim that it is. Generally his predictions have not been well received on here.
    No, it isn't off the table, and nor can Theresa May take it off the table. She can say she doesn't want it to happen, more firmly than she has already said that, but unless and until parliament decides which of the existing deal or cancelling Brexit it does want, rather than what it doesn't want, then No Deal remains a clear and present danger.
    She can take it off the table by bringing forward legislation that says on 29 March 2019 the U.K. will unilaterally revoke its A50 notification unless either a withdrawal agreement has been signed, or the A50 deadline has been extended with the agreement of the EU. If there’s a parliamentary majority in favour of ruling out no deal, that legislation would be passed. If there’s not, it won’t.
    So Parliment just over-rides the referendum...

    Yeah, thats not going to have consquences...
    It might have the consequence of encouraging Leave supporting MPs to vote in favour of a deal that takes us out of the EU. Would that be so bad?
    Sure, but they're not, both 'sides' are playing silly buggers here.
  • Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    I was rather referring to his claim that it is. Generally his predictions have not been well received on here.
    No, it isn't off the table, and nor can Theresa May take it off the table. She can say she doesn't want it to happen, more firmly than she has already said that, but unless and until parliament decides which of the existing deal or cancelling Brexit it does want, rather than what it doesn't want, then No Deal remains a clear and present danger.
    Alternatively No Deal remains a clear and present opportunity.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234

    Leavers can have the confidence that in the event that May's deal is voted down in parliament we either get a No Deal or they can ensure that parliamentary candidates in future are selected who support Leave and get Brexit next time round.

    There will never be a next time. No way, no how, not ever would any party propose in their manifesto going through this hell once more with feeling.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,451
    edited January 2019

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    Do you think May will take it off the table next week? It'll infuriate the Brexit Buccaneers, but since she knows they have no power to stop her, I think it'd be a good show of faith to Parliament, the EU and the country.
    Again we come back to how though?

    She cannot take it off the table unless she gets Parliament to endorse an alternative. Because if we do not have an agreement by 29th March, No Deal happens whether we want it or not.
    The betting markets completely disagree with that. The last time I looked, the implied probability of Parliament endorsing an agreement by 29 March was about 1/3, and the implied probability of our leaving on 29 March was also about 1/3.

    The betting markets believe that if we do not have an agreement by 29 March, then Brexit won't happen on schedule.

  • Which basically means we Remain no matter what. With that in place Parliament will never pass any form of deal. It is just as dishonest as a second referendum and will have all the dire consequences.

    No, not at all. She has a majority in Parliament. She merely has to get her party and DUP partners to support her deal. Doesn't seem unreasonable since she has a 13-seat majority.
    No there is a clear majority in Parliament for Remain. Always has been. That is the problem.
    But the majority of Remain-supporting Tory MPs have remained loyal to the PM and would vote for her deal to leave the EU. It's the Leave supporting MPs who are voting against a negotiated exit from the EU.
    Quite right. It's the Leavers who are the wreckers. Either Corbyn, because he wants a No Deal apocalypse to usher in the revolution, or the Moggites because they think the masses have become too mollycoddled and think a return to subservience and impoverishment will cleanse the soul.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    We now go live to Brexit

    image

    :)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,490


    Which basically means we Remain no matter what. With that in place Parliament will never pass any form of deal. It is just as dishonest as a second referendum and will have all the dire consequences.

    No, not at all. She has a majority in Parliament. She merely has to get her party and DUP partners to support her deal. Doesn't seem unreasonable since she has a 13-seat majority.
    No there is a clear majority in Parliament for Remain. Always has been. That is the problem.
    But the majority of Remain-supporting Tory MPs have remained loyal to the PM and would vote for her deal to leave the EU. It's the Leave supporting MPs who are voting against a negotiated exit from the EU.
    @Pro_Rata posted a handy crib sheet of who to blame for May's deal failing. Essentially you flip the MPs that should vote for the deal till you find the 313th vote or whatever that would have carried the motion (Payroll at the top, SNP at the bottom). He had various groups such as Labour A50 triggerists, Labour Brexiteers, Tory remainers etc - it is in his posts somewhere..
    You also flip the responsibility if the ultimate end is no deal or no brexit.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    Yes, a thread about a real issue.

    Ironically, as a leaver, I accept that international co-operation is going to be key to this and those parasitical countries in the EU are more likely to be controlled by EZ regulation than by anything else. Of course we do not need to be in the EU to work with them but it would probably help if we do not leave in a blazing row.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,490
    Chris said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    Do you think May will take it off the table next week? It'll infuriate the Brexit Buccaneers, but since she knows they have no power to stop her, I think it'd be a good show of faith to Parliament, the EU and the country.
    Again we come back to how though?

    She cannot take it off the table unless she gets Parliament to endorse an alternative. Because if we do not have an agreement by 29th March, No Deal happens whether we want it or not.
    The betting markets completely disagree with that. The last time I looked, the implied probability of Parliament endorsing an agreement by 29 March was about 1/3, and the implied probability of our leaving on 29 March was also about 1/3.

    The betting markets believe that if we do not have an agreement by 29 March, then Brexit won't happen on schedule.
    There might be an opportunity for anyone not currently on the premium charge for a massive arb on betfair. However the middle could be huge or could be negative. Apparently linked markets may not be with the byzantine methods of parliament to scupper/win bets.

  • Which basically means we Remain no matter what. With that in place Parliament will never pass any form of deal. It is just as dishonest as a second referendum and will have all the dire consequences.

    No, not at all. She has a majority in Parliament. She merely has to get her party and DUP partners to support her deal. Doesn't seem unreasonable since she has a 13-seat majority.
    No there is a clear majority in Parliament for Remain. Always has been. That is the problem.
    But the majority of Remain-supporting Tory MPs have remained loyal to the PM and would vote for her deal to leave the EU. It's the Leave supporting MPs who are voting against a negotiated exit from the EU.
    Quite right. It's the Leavers who are the wreckers. Either Corbyn, because he wants a No Deal apocalypse to usher in the revolution, or the Moggites because they think the masses have become too mollycoddled and a return to subservience and impoverishment will cleanse the soul.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Pulpstar said:


    Which basically means we Remain no matter what. With that in place Parliament will never pass any form of deal. It is just as dishonest as a second referendum and will have all the dire consequences.

    No, not at all. She has a majority in Parliament. She merely has to get her party and DUP partners to support her deal. Doesn't seem unreasonable since she has a 13-seat majority.
    No there is a clear majority in Parliament for Remain. Always has been. That is the problem.
    But the majority of Remain-supporting Tory MPs have remained loyal to the PM and would vote for her deal to leave the EU. It's the Leave supporting MPs who are voting against a negotiated exit from the EU.
    @Pro_Rata posted a handy crib sheet of who to blame for May's deal failing. Essentially you flip the MPs that should vote for the deal till you find the 313th vote or whatever that would have carried the motion (Payroll at the top, SNP at the bottom). He had various groups such as Labour A50 triggerists, Labour Brexiteers, Tory remainers etc - it is in his posts somewhere..
    You also flip the responsibility if the ultimate end is no deal or no brexit.
    You can hardly blame the 313th vote for failing to fall into line if the 210th fails to do so.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,505
    edited January 2019

    Polruan said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    I was rather referring to his claim that it is. Generally his predictions have not been well received on here.
    No, it isn't off the table, and nor can Theresa May take it off the table. She can say she doesn't want it to happen, more firmly than she has already said that, but unless and until parliament decides which of the existing deal or cancelling Brexit it does want, rather than what it doesn't want, then No Deal remains a clear and present danger.
    She can take it off the table by bringing forward legislation that says on 29 March 2019 the U.K. will unilaterally revoke its A50 notification unless either a withdrawal agreement has been signed, or the A50 deadline has been extended with the agreement of the EU. If there’s a parliamentary majority in favour of ruling out no deal, that legislation would be passed. If there’s not, it won’t.
    So Parliment just over-rides the referendum...

    Yeah, thats not going to have consquences...
    It might have the consequence of encouraging Leave supporting MPs to vote in favour of a deal that takes us out of the EU. Would that be so bad?
    As I said, there are not enough of them. The majority want to Remain. They are just too cowardly to actually make it happen themselves and want a smoke screen so they can claim to the electorate it wasn't their fault.
    According to Rentoul there are 300 MPs who want EUref2 with a Remain option, more than the 220 MPs who back May's Deal or the 119 MPs who back No Deal.

    If May's Deal is voted down May might see proposing a Leave with the Deal or No Deal referendum as the only way to try and see off MPs voting for EUref2 with a Remain option if both Deal and No Deal MPs back the former given combined they have more than those backing EUref2 with a Remain option
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,216
    I've decided that being on PB is doing me no good, so I'm going to take a break for a while.

    Have fun everyone, whether remainer, leaver, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem. And yes, even SNP. ;)
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited January 2019
    Chris said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    Do you think May will take it off the table next week? It'll infuriate the Brexit Buccaneers, but since she knows they have no power to stop her, I think it'd be a good show of faith to Parliament, the EU and the country.
    Again we come back to how though?

    She cannot take it off the table unless she gets Parliament to endorse an alternative. Because if we do not have an agreement by 29th March, No Deal happens whether we want it or not.
    The betting markets completely disagree with that. The last time I looked, the implied probability of Parliament endorsing an agreement by 29 March was about 1/3, and the implied probability of our leaving on 29 March was also about 1/3.

    The betting markets believe that if we do not have an agreement by 29 March, then Brexit won't happen on schedule.
    If we agree a deal it will be May's deal or something very close to it and it will be agreed late - so we might need a technical A50 extension to get the legislative ducks in a row. You could argue that we will only leave on March 29th with no deal and any negotiated departure would have to be at least a few weeks later now.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,490

    Pulpstar said:


    Which basically means we Remain no matter what. With that in place Parliament will never pass any form of deal. It is just as dishonest as a second referendum and will have all the dire consequences.

    No, not at all. She has a majority in Parliament. She merely has to get her party and DUP partners to support her deal. Doesn't seem unreasonable since she has a 13-seat majority.
    No there is a clear majority in Parliament for Remain. Always has been. That is the problem.
    But the majority of Remain-supporting Tory MPs have remained loyal to the PM and would vote for her deal to leave the EU. It's the Leave supporting MPs who are voting against a negotiated exit from the EU.
    @Pro_Rata posted a handy crib sheet of who to blame for May's deal failing. Essentially you flip the MPs that should vote for the deal till you find the 313th vote or whatever that would have carried the motion (Payroll at the top, SNP at the bottom). He had various groups such as Labour A50 triggerists, Labour Brexiteers, Tory remainers etc - it is in his posts somewhere..
    You also flip the responsibility if the ultimate end is no deal or no brexit.
    You can hardly blame the 313th vote for failing to fall into line if the 210th fails to do so.
    Of course you can, otherwise or in extremis you'd get to blame Chris Law as much as Phil Hammond for voting down Gov't legislation.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,783
    edited January 2019


    Which basically means we Remain no matter what. With that in place Parliament will never pass any form of deal. It is just as dishonest as a second referendum and will have all the dire consequences.

    No, not at all. She has a majority in Parliament. She merely has to get her party and DUP partners to support her deal. Doesn't seem unreasonable since she has a 13-seat majority.
    No there is a clear majority in Parliament for Remain. Always has been. That is the problem.
    It's pretty damn close, though:

    All Con leavers + Con Remainers currently supporting deal + Lab leavers + LD Remainer supporting of deal.

    You are around the 310s there, even given thattsome of the second grouping are part of closing off the No Deal option.

    You get the leavers on board for leaving and you are literally a handful short of delivering Leave. Pick off a handful of A50 Labour types and you'd be there.

    The Remain majority is not clear, and Leavers should not be exempted from their responsibility towards delivering leave.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,769

    I've decided that being on PB is doing me no good, so I'm going to take a break for a while.

    Have fun everyone, whether remainer, leaver, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem. And yes, even SNP. ;)

    Enjoy life outside the Matrix.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,505
    For Edmund in Tokyo (last thread) In the 1990s violent crime in New York city fell by 56% when Giuliani was Mayor compared to just 28% across the US as a whole

    https://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/w9061.html
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,475
    edited January 2019
    Chris said:

    The betting markets completely disagree with that. The last time I looked, the implied probability of Parliament endorsing an agreement by 29 March was about 1/3, and the implied probability of our leaving on 29 March was also about 1/3.

    The betting markets believe that if we do not have an agreement by 29 March, then Brexit won't happen on schedule.

    Numbers are about right but it is not quite correct to imply that the markets therefore have No Deal as a near zero chance.

    Reason being, there is a distinct possibility that a deal could be agreed in Q1 but too late to implement by 29/3.

    In such a case there would almost certainly be a short extension granted, and thus with those betfair markets, the Brexit vote would have passed in Q1 but the Brexit date itself would be Q2.

    Factoring this in, you get a probability for No Deal of somewhere between 10% and 20%.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    edited January 2019

    Leavers can have the confidence that in the event that May's deal is voted down in parliament we either get a No Deal or they can ensure that parliamentary candidates in future are selected who support Leave and get Brexit next time round.

    There will never be a next time. No way, no how, not ever would any party propose in their manifesto going through this hell once more with feeling.
    A party whose raison d'etre is to implement Brexit would happily do so.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,219
    DavidL said:

    Yes, a thread about a real issue.

    Ironically, as a leaver, I accept that international co-operation is going to be key to this and those parasitical countries in the EU are more likely to be controlled by EZ regulation than by anything else. Of course we do not need to be in the EU to work with them but it would probably help if we do not leave in a blazing row.

    What if you're a country that simply taxes and spends at a lower rate than the majority, making you attractive to investors?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    Jonathan said:

    I've decided that being on PB is doing me no good, so I'm going to take a break for a while.

    Have fun everyone, whether remainer, leaver, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem. And yes, even SNP. ;)

    Enjoy life outside the Matrix.
    There's life outside the Matrix?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,315
    edited January 2019

    I've decided that being on PB is doing me no good, so I'm going to take a break for a while.

    Have fun everyone, whether remainer, leaver, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem. And yes, even SNP. ;)

    I am sorry to hear that. These are stressful times but everyone's contributions help to widen discussion and views

    Please come back soon. Best wishes
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,451

    Chris said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    Do you think May will take it off the table next week? It'll infuriate the Brexit Buccaneers, but since she knows they have no power to stop her, I think it'd be a good show of faith to Parliament, the EU and the country.
    Again we come back to how though?

    She cannot take it off the table unless she gets Parliament to endorse an alternative. Because if we do not have an agreement by 29th March, No Deal happens whether we want it or not.
    The betting markets completely disagree with that. The last time I looked, the implied probability of Parliament endorsing an agreement by 29 March was about 1/3, and the implied probability of our leaving on 29 March was also about 1/3.

    The betting markets believe that if we do not have an agreement by 29 March, then Brexit won't happen on schedule.
    If we agree a deal it will be May's deal or something very close to it and it will be agreed late - so we might need a technical A50 extension to get the legislative ducks in a row. You could argue that we will only leave on March 29th with no deal and any negotiated departure would have to be at least a few weeks later now.
    That's a good point, which had also crossed my mind. It may be that the implied probability of "No Deal" isn't as small as those figures make it appear.

    Betfair makes the probability of the deal being passed in March about 10%.
  • Wholesale tax reform is needed. Simpler, lower taxes paid by everyone should always be the aim.

    Business Rates (NNDR) in the 21st century need to be abolished and replaced by something that doesn't depend upon property. Potentially VAT. When a consumer in a locale has a choice to buy from a bricks and mortar store or online, why should the bricks and mortar be burdened with a mammoth NNDR tax bill which the online rivals don't pay a penny of? The online rivals still benefit from many of the local services (especially consumers and roads to deliver their products) that the bricks and mortar buildings benefit from too.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Yes, a thread about a real issue.

    Ironically, as a leaver, I accept that international co-operation is going to be key to this and those parasitical countries in the EU are more likely to be controlled by EZ regulation than by anything else. Of course we do not need to be in the EU to work with them but it would probably help if we do not leave in a blazing row.

    What if you're a country that simply taxes and spends at a lower rate than the majority, making you attractive to investors?
    Investors might welcome low taxes but they'd probably want high spending too, not least on infrastructure and education.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,370
    Mr. Jessop, you're not the only PBer who's opted for a sabbatical. These can be quite testy times. Hope you find the break relaxing, and come back soon to find things a little more tranquil.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,693

    We now go live to Brexit

    image

    LOL!. Who is this moronic idiot? Never heard of her!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526


    I've decided that being on PB is doing me no good, so I'm going to take a break for a while.

    Have fun everyone, whether remainer, leaver, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem. And yes, even SNP. ;)

    I am sorry to hear that. These are stressful times but everyone's contributions help to widen discussion and views

    Please come back soon. Best wishes
    With Corbyn still plugging away for an election that won't come, we could probably all usefully take a pause. See you once the outcome of the Meaningful Vote is known.....
  • Chris said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    Do you think May will take it off the table next week? It'll infuriate the Brexit Buccaneers, but since she knows they have no power to stop her, I think it'd be a good show of faith to Parliament, the EU and the country.
    Again we come back to how though?

    She cannot take it off the table unless she gets Parliament to endorse an alternative. Because if we do not have an agreement by 29th March, No Deal happens whether we want it or not.
    The betting markets completely disagree with that. The last time I looked, the implied probability of Parliament endorsing an agreement by 29 March was about 1/3, and the implied probability of our leaving on 29 March was also about 1/3.

    The betting markets believe that if we do not have an agreement by 29 March, then Brexit won't happen on schedule.
    Well they are wrong. There has to be a majority in Parliament for something to happen before then or No Deal is the default option. Even obtaining an extension requires Parliament to actually agree something.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,615
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    How to deal with parasite taxation? Use taxes that are hard to parasite.

    * VAT. On everything. Make it simple, scrap the exemptions and zero-rates
    * Lots more tax on all the negative externalities, especially fuel
    * Steeper income tax curve to make up for any regressive effects of the above
    * Get rid of all the silly tax breaks like CGT relief on your first home
    * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

    None of those are taxes on corporations. If anything you are loading even more taxes on individuals rather than on corporations and exacerbating the sense that taxes are paid only by the little people.
    I know corporations are people but are they the big people? Or are only big corporations the big people, and little corporations are also the little people?
    I think most individuals would see themselves as little people by comparison with corporations i.e. the Amazons and Googles of this world. I expect that my local bookshop would also see themselves as a little person as well, and one threatened by such behemoths. It is easy to tax individuals and property. It is harder to tax corporations. The difficulties of doing the latter should not be an excuse for loading more tax on the former. That will just exacerbate the perception gap @Alanbrooke identifies.
    Well, people can perceive what they like but this thread isn't exactly bursting with actionable ways to fix the problem @alanbrooke identifies. I mean Nick Palmer had one, but you really need to go all the way to a Tapestryesque One World Government to make serious progress with that one, and that will upset the voters even more than CGT on amateur property speculation.

    So you have to either replace the revenue or cut back on other government spending, like welfare and (non-private) education. By some weird coincidence, it turns out that a lot of the people with sincere concern for the little guy who get upset at (((neoliberal))) (((globalists))) like me for suggesting practical ways to replace the revenue by taxing rich people and ending tax breaks that benefit rich people also favour cutting government spending.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,219

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    How to deal with parasite taxation? Use taxes that are hard to parasite.

    * VAT. On everything. Make it simple, scrap the exemptions and zero-rates
    * Lots more tax on all the negative externalities, especially fuel
    * Steeper income tax curve to make up for any regressive effects of the above
    * Get rid of all the silly tax breaks like CGT relief on your first home
    * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

    None of those are taxes on corporations. If anything you are loading even more taxes on individuals rather than on corporations and exacerbating the sense that taxes are paid only by the little people.
    I know corporations are people but are they the big people? Or are only big corporations the big people, and little corporations are also the little people?
    I think most individuals would see themselves as little people by comparison with corporations i.e. the Amazons and Googles of this world. I expect that my local bookshop would also see themselves as a little person as well, and one threatened by such behemoths. It is easy to tax individuals and property. It is harder to tax corporations. The difficulties of doing the latter should not be an excuse for loading more tax on the former. That will just exacerbate the perception gap @Alanbrooke identifies.
    Well, people can perceive what they like but this thread isn't exactly bursting with actionable ways to fix the problem @alanbrooke identifies. I mean Nick Palmer had one, but you really need to go all the way to a Tapestryesque One World Government to make serious progress with that one, and that will upset the voters even more than CGT on amateur property speculation.

    So you have to either replace the revenue or cut back on other government spending, like welfare and (non-private) education. By some weird coincidence, it turns out that a lot of the people with sincere concern for the little guy who get upset at (((neoliberal))) (((globalists))) like me for suggesting practical ways to replace the revenue by taxing rich people and ending tax breaks that benefit rich people also favour cutting government spending.
    Your suggestions are viable, but only in a country which is not a democracy.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Pro_Rata said:


    Which basically means we Remain no matter what. With that in place Parliament will never pass any form of deal. It is just as dishonest as a second referendum and will have all the dire consequences.

    No, not at all. She has a majority in Parliament. She merely has to get her party and DUP partners to support her deal. Doesn't seem unreasonable since she has a 13-seat majority.
    No there is a clear majority in Parliament for Remain. Always has been. That is the problem.
    It's pretty damn close, though:

    All Con leavers + Con Remainers currently supporting deal + Lab leavers + LD Remainer supporting of deal.

    You are around the 310s there, even given thattsome of the second grouping are part of closing off the No Deal option.

    You get the leavers on board for leaving and you are literally a handful short of delivering Leave. Pick off a handful of A50 Labour types and you'd be there.

    The Remain majority is not clear, and Leavers should not be exempted from their responsibility towards delivering leave.
    I think that if all the Parliamentary Leavers fell in behind the negotiated exit from the EU that the Conservative Remainers would be under a lot of pressure to do likewise and probably enough of them would do so to get May over the line.

    It's the ERGers pushing for no deal who have made it possible for the ranks of Tory Remain rebels to grow.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,005

    I've decided that being on PB is doing me no good, so I'm going to take a break for a while.

    Have fun everyone, whether remainer, leaver, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem. And yes, even SNP. ;)

    I understand what you mean, so have a good break.
    The site will be poorer without your reasoned input, so please return when you're ready to.

  • I've decided that being on PB is doing me no good, so I'm going to take a break for a while.

    Have fun everyone, whether remainer, leaver, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem. And yes, even SNP. ;)

    I am sorry to hear that. These are stressful times but everyone's contributions help to widen discussion and views

    Please come back soon. Best wishes
    With Corbyn still plugging away for an election that won't come, we could probably all usefully take a pause. See you once the outcome of the Meaningful Vote is known.....
    I have considered it but like to pop in now and then

    Look forward to your posts in due course. Best wishes
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,615
    HYUFD said:

    For Edmund in Tokyo (last thread) In the 1990s violent crime in New York city fell by 56% when Giuliani was Mayor compared to just 28% across the US as a whole

    https://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/w9061.html

    Somebody else posted the study, compare to similar cities not the whole US. Places that never had many crack users didn't see crime drop much when the crack epidemic ran out of victims.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,769

    Mr. Jessop, you're not the only PBer who's opted for a sabbatical. These can be quite testy times. Hope you find the break relaxing, and come back soon to find things a little more tranquil.

    2066, when the deal is finally done?
  • * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

    No, no, no, a million times no! Not for businesses at least, maybe for residential. We need to be moving away from taxing land not towards it. Virtual businesses operate with zero land value, zero rents and have mammoth competitive advantages because of it, but operate via clogging our roads up with vehicles instead. Burdening those with land with even more taxes is not the solution.

    We need to treat physical and virtual the same. That means no taxes on land (for corporations), taxes on sales etc like VAT instead.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,811

    * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

    No, no, no, a million times no! Not for businesses at least, maybe for residential. We need to be moving away from taxing land not towards it. Virtual businesses operate with zero land value, zero rents and have mammoth competitive advantages because of it, but operate via clogging our roads up with vehicles instead. Burdening those with land with even more taxes is not the solution.

    We need to treat physical and virtual the same. That means no taxes on land (for corporations), taxes on sales etc like VAT instead.
    A land tax on individuals is just basically rates. The proof of that is in the real world what I have to pay over and now what I pay already, as is the case for so many taxes.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    How to deal with parasite taxation? Use taxes that are hard to parasite.

    * VAT. On everything. Make it simple, scrap the exemptions and zero-rates
    * Lots more tax on all the negative externalities, especially fuel
    * Steeper income tax curve to make up for any regressive effects of the above
    * Get rid of all the silly tax breaks like CGT relief on your first home
    * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

    None of those are taxes on corporations. If anything you are loading even more taxes on individuals rather than on corporations and exacerbating the sense that taxes are paid only by the little people.
    I know corporations are people but are they the big people? Or are only big corporations the big people, and little corporations are also the little people?
    I think most individuals would see themselves as little people by comparison with corporations i.e. the Amazons and Googles of this world. I expect that my local bookshop would also see themselves as a little person as well, and one threatened by such behemoths. It is easy to tax individuals and property. It is harder to tax corporations. The difficulties of doing the latter should not be an excuse for loading more tax on the former. That will just exacerbate the perception gap @Alanbrooke identifies.
    Well, people can perceive what they like but this thread isn't exactly bursting with actionable ways to fix the problem @alanbrooke identifies. I mean Nick Palmer had one, but you really need to go all the way to a Tapestryesque One World Government to make serious progress with that one, and that will upset the voters even more than CGT on amateur property speculation.

    So you have to either replace the revenue or cut back on other government spending, like welfare and (non-private) education. By some weird coincidence, it turns out that a lot of the people with sincere concern for the little guy who get upset at (((neoliberal))) (((globalists))) like me for suggesting practical ways to replace the revenue by taxing rich people and ending tax breaks that benefit rich people also favour cutting government spending.
    Replace the revenue with taxes that apply to everyone.

    If your taxing the sales of electronics then tax sales of electronics on Amazon the same as sales of electronics at PC World. If you're taxing the sales of clothes then tax sales of clothes on Amazon the same as sales of clothes at New Look.

    Don't burden PC World and New Look with land-based taxes then allow Amazon to compete without paying a penny of those taxes.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,061

    Can somebody show me the working on this one?

    image

    Easy - if we all voted for Jeremy, then everything would be fine.

    Why can't you see that ?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,615
    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    How to deal with parasite taxation? Use taxes that are hard to parasite.

    * VAT. On everything. Make it simple, scrap the exemptions and zero-rates
    * Lots more tax on all the negative externalities, especially fuel
    * Steeper income tax curve to make up for any regressive effects of the above
    * Get rid of all the silly tax breaks like CGT relief on your first home
    * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

    None of those are taxes on corporations. If anything you are loading even more taxes on individuals rather than on corporations and exacerbating the sense that taxes are paid only by the little people.
    I know corporations are people but are they the big people? Or are only big corporations the big people, and little corporations are also the little people?
    I think most individuals would see themselves as little people by comparison with corporations i.e. the Amazons and Googles of this world. I expect that my local bookshop would also see themselves as a little person as well, and one threatened by such behemoths. It is easy to tax individuals and property. It is harder to tax corporations. The difficulties of doing the latter should not be an excuse for loading more tax on the former. That will just exacerbate the perception gap @Alanbrooke identifies.
    Well, people can perceive what they like but this thread isn't exactly bursting with actionable ways to fix the problem @alanbrooke identifies. I mean Nick Palmer had one, but you really need to go all the way to a Tapestryesque One World Government to make serious progress with that one, and that will upset the voters even more than CGT on amateur property speculation.

    So you have to either replace the revenue or cut back on other government spending, like welfare and (non-private) education. By some weird coincidence, it turns out that a lot of the people with sincere concern for the little guy who get upset at (((neoliberal))) (((globalists))) like me for suggesting practical ways to replace the revenue by taxing rich people and ending tax breaks that benefit rich people also favour cutting government spending.
    Your suggestions are viable, but only in a country which is not a democracy.
    TBF I bet you could do the last two with high allowances ("mansion tax" etc) without too much hissing, and tax on fuel etc has been steadily going up for decades, albeit with temporary strategic withdrawals for the short periods when the protesters get their shit together.

    I take the point that messing with the VAT rates is probably not worth the political damage, as we saw with the pasty business, but maybe it could be done with a bit more cunning.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,505

    HYUFD said:

    For Edmund in Tokyo (last thread) In the 1990s violent crime in New York city fell by 56% when Giuliani was Mayor compared to just 28% across the US as a whole

    https://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/w9061.html

    Somebody else posted the study, compare to similar cities not the whole US. Places that never had many crack users didn't see crime drop much when the crack epidemic ran out of victims.
    According to the Corman and Morcani study in question it was the increase in the arrest rate in New York city which most contributed to the drop in crime there
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 1,855

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    How to deal with parasite taxation? Use taxes that are hard to parasite.

    * VAT. On everything. Make it simple, scrap the exemptions and zero-rates
    * Lots more tax on all the negative externalities, especially fuel
    * Steeper income tax curve to make up for any regressive effects of the above
    * Get rid of all the silly tax breaks like CGT relief on your first home
    * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

    None of those are taxes
    I know corporations are people but are they the big people? Or are only big corporations the big people, and little corporations are also the little people?
    I think most individuals would see themselves as little people by comparison with corporations i.e. the Amazons and Googles of this world. I expect that my local bookshop would also see themselves as a little person as well, and one threatened by such behemoths. It is easy to tax individuals and property. It is harder to tax corporations. The difficulties of doing the latter should not be an excuse for loading more tax on the former. That will just exacerbate the perception gap @Alanbrooke identifies.
    Well, people can perceive what they like but this thread isn't exactly bursting with actionable ways to fix the problem @alanbrooke identifies. I mean Nick Palmer had one, but you really need to go all the way to a Tapestryesque One World Government to make serious progress with that one, and that will upset the voters even more than CGT on amateur property speculation.

    So you have to either replace the revenue or cut back on other government spending, like welfare and (non-private) education. By some weird coincidence, it turns out that a lot of the people with sincere concern for the little guy who get upset at (((neoliberal))) (((globalists))) like me for suggesting practical ways to replace the revenue by taxing rich people and ending tax breaks that benefit rich people also favour cutting government spending.
    Replace the revenue with taxes that apply to everyone.

    If your taxing the sales of electronics then tax sales of electronics on Amazon the same as sales of electronics at PC World. If you're taxing the sales of clothes then tax sales of clothes on Amazon the same as sales of clothes at New Look.

    Don't burden PC World and New Look with land-based taxes then allow Amazon to compete without paying a penny of those taxes.
    What do you perceive as the differences between the taxes applying to Big Online Electronics Seller A and those applying to Big Bricks-and-Mortar Electronics Seller B at present? Assuming U.K. purchaser, all duties and VAT accounted for in accordance with the law as it stands?
  • I don't know the numbers of it to make it balance but if you make it revenue-neutral for bricks and mortar buildings you could put a penny or two on VAT and abolish NNDR. Using the VAT revenue to replace NNDR revenue.

    Prices in bricks and mortar buildings shouldn't change because it is a cost-neutral change, but revenue from eg Amazon etc will increase and prices at Amazon etc may increase but only proportionately to the point they're paying their fare share of taxes as bricks and mortar always have had to.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,003

    Chris said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    Do you think May will take it off the table next week? It'll infuriate the Brexit Buccaneers, but since she knows they have no power to stop her, I think it'd be a good show of faith to Parliament, the EU and the country.
    Again we come back to how though?

    She cannot take it off the table unless she gets Parliament to endorse an alternative. Because if we do not have an agreement by 29th March, No Deal happens whether we want it or not.
    The betting markets completely disagree with that. The last time I looked, the implied probability of Parliament endorsing an agreement by 29 March was about 1/3, and the implied probability of our leaving on 29 March was also about 1/3.

    The betting markets believe that if we do not have an agreement by 29 March, then Brexit won't happen on schedule.
    Well they are wrong. There has to be a majority in Parliament for something to happen before then or No Deal is the default option. Even obtaining an extension requires Parliament to actually agree something.
    Does it? What's to stop her/the executive just asking Brussels for one? The WA I get, but an extension?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,451

    Chris said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    Do you think May will take it off the table next week? It'll infuriate the Brexit Buccaneers, but since she knows they have no power to stop her, I think it'd be a good show of faith to Parliament, the EU and the country.
    Again we come back to how though?

    She cannot take it off the table unless she gets Parliament to endorse an alternative. Because if we do not have an agreement by 29th March, No Deal happens whether we want it or not.
    The betting markets completely disagree with that. The last time I looked, the implied probability of Parliament endorsing an agreement by 29 March was about 1/3, and the implied probability of our leaving on 29 March was also about 1/3.

    The betting markets believe that if we do not have an agreement by 29 March, then Brexit won't happen on schedule.
    Well they are wrong. There has to be a majority in Parliament for something to happen before then or No Deal is the default option. Even obtaining an extension requires Parliament to actually agree something.
    Of course that's true. But it doesn't follow from it that the betting markets are wrong. That depends on our estimates of the probabilities involved, doesn't it?

    I'd have thought whether the betting markets are right or wrong should be meat and drink here. But people seem much more interested in endless, pointless arguments about whether Brexit itself is right or wrong.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    murali_s said:

    We now go live to Brexit

    image

    LOL!. Who is this moronic idiot? Never heard of her!
    Why don't you go on her radio show and tell her to her face,she would run rings round you.
  • Polruan said:

    Replace the revenue with taxes that apply to everyone.

    If your taxing the sales of electronics then tax sales of electronics on Amazon the same as sales of electronics at PC World. If you're taxing the sales of clothes then tax sales of clothes on Amazon the same as sales of clothes at New Look.

    Don't burden PC World and New Look with land-based taxes then allow Amazon to compete without paying a penny of those taxes.

    What do you perceive as the differences between the taxes applying to Big Online Electronics Seller A and those applying to Big Bricks-and-Mortar Electronics Seller B at present? Assuming U.K. purchaser, all duties and VAT accounted for in accordance with the law as it stands?
    Business Rates (NNDR).

    These can be thousands a month for even relatively small businesses and are payable whether profit-making or not. It is a tax paid only by bricks and mortar and used to fund local services (including to my knowledge road maintenance and street lighting that the online seller is using but not paying for).
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    edited January 2019
    HYUFD said:

    Polruan said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    I was rather referring to his claim that it is. Generally his predictions have not been well received on here.
    No, it isn't off the table, and nor can Theresa May take it off the table. She can say she doesn't want it to happen, more firmly than she has already said that, but unless and until parliament decides which of the existing deal or cancelling Brexit it does want, rather than what it doesn't want, then No Deal remains a clear and present danger.
    She can take it off the table by bringing forward legislation that says on 29 March 2019 the U.K. will unilaterally revoke its A50 notification unless either a withdrawal agreement has been signed, or the A50 deadline has been extended with the agreement of the EU. If there’s a parliamentary majority in favour of ruling out no deal, that legislation would be passed. If there’s not, it won’t.
    So Parliment just over-rides the referendum...

    Yeah, thats not going to have consquences...
    It might have the consequence of encouraging Leave supporting MPs to vote in favour of a deal that takes us out of the EU. Would that be so bad?
    As I said, there are not enough of them. The majority want to Remain. They are just too cowardly to actually make it happen themselves and want a smoke screen so they can claim to the electorate it wasn't their fault.
    According to Rentoul there are 300 MPs who want EUref2 with a Remain option, more than the 220 MPs who back May's Deal or the 119 MPs who back No Deal.

    If May's Deal is voted down May might see proposing a Leave with the Deal or No Deal referendum as the only way to try and see off MPs voting for EUref2 with a Remain option if both Deal and No Deal MPs back the former given combined they have more than those backing EUref2 with a Remain option
    A referendum without a Remain option would be an utter nonsense.

    As would a referendum with a No Deal option – given that a vast majority of MPs oppose such an outcome.

    A viable – and perfectly democratic – option would be Deal vs Remain.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,003
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    Do you think May will take it off the table next week? It'll infuriate the Brexit Buccaneers, but since she knows they have no power to stop her, I think it'd be a good show of faith to Parliament, the EU and the country.
    Again we come back to how though?

    She cannot take it off the table unless she gets Parliament to endorse an alternative. Because if we do not have an agreement by 29th March, No Deal happens whether we want it or not.
    The betting markets completely disagree with that. The last time I looked, the implied probability of Parliament endorsing an agreement by 29 March was about 1/3, and the implied probability of our leaving on 29 March was also about 1/3.

    The betting markets believe that if we do not have an agreement by 29 March, then Brexit won't happen on schedule.
    Well they are wrong. There has to be a majority in Parliament for something to happen before then or No Deal is the default option. Even obtaining an extension requires Parliament to actually agree something.
    Of course that's true. But it doesn't follow from it that the betting markets are wrong. That depends on our estimates of the probabilities involved, doesn't it?

    I'd have thought whether the betting markets are right or wrong should be meat and drink here. But people seem much more interested in endless, pointless arguments about whether Brexit itself is right or wrong.
    "Well they are wrong" = Tyndall's net worth staked on this knowledge.

    Am I right Richard?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,451
    Oh - and does an extension really require the approval of Parliament? I mean in legal terms.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,061
    One billionaire drops out of the Democratic nomination running:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/424609-steyer-wont-run-against-trump-in-2020
  • Thanks Polruan and others for bringing me up to date. It used to be my bread and butter but I don't keep up any more.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    HYUFD said:

    Polruan said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    I was rather referring to his claim that it is. Generally his predictions have not been well received on here.
    No, it isn't off the table, and nor can Theresa May take it off the table. She can say she doesn't want it to happen, more firmly than she has already said that, but unless and until parliament decides which of the existing deal or cancelling Brexit it does want, rather than what it doesn't want, then No Deal remains a clear and present danger.
    She can take it off the table by bringing forward legislation that says on 29 March 2019 the U.K. will unilaterally revoke its A50 notification unless either a withdrawal agreement has been signed, or the A50 deadline has been extended with the agreement of the EU. If there’s a parliamentary majority in favour of ruling out no deal, that legislation would be passed. If there’s not, it won’t.
    So Parliment just over-rides the referendum...

    Yeah, thats not going to have consquences...
    It might have the consequence of encouraging Leave supporting MPs to vote in favour of a deal that takes us out of the EU. Would that be so bad?
    As I said, there are not enough of them. The majority want to Remain. They are just too cowardly to actually make it happen themselves and want a smoke screen so they can claim to the electorate it wasn't their fault.
    According to Rentoul there are 300 MPs who want EUref2 with a Remain option, more than the 220 MPs who back May's Deal or the 119 MPs who back No Deal.

    If May's Deal is voted down May might see proposing a Leave with the Deal or No Deal referendum as the only way to try and see off MPs voting for EUref2 with a Remain option if both Deal and No Deal MPs back the former given combined they have more than those backing EUref2 with a Remain option
    But Remainers have an incentive to back a Remain vs. Deal referendum, whereas No Dealers have no incentive to back a Deal vs. No Deal referendum, since No Deal is the default we're heading for.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,536
    Cicero said:

    Ok, a mention of Estonia was bound to trigger me. Estonia shouldn't be on the list. Corporate taxation is zero only on undistributed profits, if any dividend payout the it is taxed as income, at 20%. It is a method to promote the growth of Estonian companies, not a method for foreigners to incorporate and avoid tax. In fact even for Estonian E-residents who set up Estonian companies from overseas, the reporting is actually relatively onerous.

    Nor does Estonia stint on defence, it has always complied with the NATO 2% of GDP spend, and sometimes by a big margin, but the pressure from Russia is strong, and Estonia has drones, not an airforce, hence the NATO air policing squadron.

    More to the actual point. Estonia does not generally run a deficit, so it has rock solid public finances, the government is run efficiently and has net public assets, rather than a national debt. This explains why Estonia has a AA- credit rating, stable outlook (UK is AA, negative outlook). The country has professionals, not bullshitters, in Parliament. The civil service can deliver ferry charters themselves, without lining the pockets of dubious Tory-connected start-ups. Leadership and management is not just a load of box ticking diversity training horsesh*t. Take back control? I think we are now seeing just how dreadful the quality of UK management in the public and private sectors has got over the past few years. In my lifetime the UK has gone from being the second largest economy in the world to being on the verge of leaving the top ten. That is NOT inevitable decline- it is crappy high schools, the class system, a tolerance of bad behaviour, you name it.

    Right now I'm transiting Manchester Airport. Its a toilet. Dingy, dirty, cramped, badly designed, surly staff, everything done as "that'll do". might as well be a metaphor for the whole of the UK and it makes me very very angry. Pull your bloody socks up UK! As for tax avoidance, the sleazy cabal of Tory estate agents will not look kindly on taxing the murderers and other criminals from around the world who have bought flats in London... A Land Value tax should be the start of a comprehensive reform of the Uk tax code- its the longest in the world at 27,000 pages and it mostly designed to hide the fact that the rich pay massively less than the poor. In fact it is London that is the centre of global money laundering so take the beam out of your own eye before you mention the motes elsewhere.

    just catching up since Ive been out all morning, but is this the same Estonia which is currently at the centre of the largest money laundering scandal in Europe atm ?
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 1,855

    Polruan said:

    Replace the revenue with taxes that apply to everyone.

    If your taxing the sales of electronics then tax sales of electronics on Amazon the same as sales of electronics at PC World. If you're taxing the sales of clothes then tax sales of clothes on Amazon the same as sales of clothes at New Look.

    Don't burden PC World and New Look with land-based taxes then allow Amazon to compete without paying a penny of those taxes.

    What do you perceive as the differences between the taxes applying to Big Online Electronics Seller A and those applying to Big Bricks-and-Mortar Electronics Seller B at present? Assuming U.K. purchaser, all duties and VAT accounted for in accordance with the law as it stands?
    Business Rates (NNDR).

    These can be thousands a month for even relatively small businesses and are payable whether profit-making or not. It is a tax paid only by bricks and mortar and used to fund local services (including to my knowledge road maintenance and street lighting that the online seller is using but not paying for).
    Sorry, I thought you were talking about the wider tax structure adopted by each and/or VAT.

    It doesn’t seem wrong in principle that businesses pay some level of tax based on their physical location to cover the impacts there. Online businesses don’t have those impacts: their equivalent impacts are on transport infrastructure (should be dealt with via the tax regime applicable to logistics businesses) and in the area surrounding their distribution centres (should be dealt with by taxes relevant to that location).

    I don’t know how warehouse and distribution facilities are treated for NNDR purposes, and can see that NNDR for small shops may be disproportionately high regardless of the online threat, but overall the situation seems to be a fair consequence of the economic reality of the different business models, not an unfair advantage granted to online.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    Do you think May will take it off the table next week? It'll infuriate the Brexit Buccaneers, but since she knows they have no power to stop her, I think it'd be a good show of faith to Parliament, the EU and the country.
    Again we come back to how though?

    She cannot take it off the table unless she gets Parliament to endorse an alternative. Because if we do not have an agreement by 29th March, No Deal happens whether we want it or not.
    The betting markets completely disagree with that. The last time I looked, the implied probability of Parliament endorsing an agreement by 29 March was about 1/3, and the implied probability of our leaving on 29 March was also about 1/3.

    The betting markets believe that if we do not have an agreement by 29 March, then Brexit won't happen on schedule.
    Well they are wrong. There has to be a majority in Parliament for something to happen before then or No Deal is the default option. Even obtaining an extension requires Parliament to actually agree something.
    Of course that's true. But it doesn't follow from it that the betting markets are wrong. That depends on our estimates of the probabilities involved, doesn't it?

    I'd have thought whether the betting markets are right or wrong should be meat and drink here. But people seem much more interested in endless, pointless arguments about whether Brexit itself is right or wrong.
    To be fair I think the argument has moved on to the question of who is to blame for Brexit not happening/not being a nirvana.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    Polruan said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    I was rather referring to his claim that it is. Generally his predictions have not been well received on here.
    No, it isn't off the table, and nor can Theresa May take it off the table. She can say she doesn't want it to happen, more firmly than she has already said that, but unless and until parliament decides which of the existing deal or cancelling Brexit it does want, rather than what it doesn't want, then No Deal remains a clear and present danger.
    She can take it off the table by bringing forward legislation that says on 29 March 2019 the U.K. will unilaterally revoke its A50 notification unless either a withdrawal agreement has been signed, or the A50 deadline has been extended with the agreement of the EU. If there’s a parliamentary majority in favour of ruling out no deal, that legislation would be passed. If there’s not, it won’t.
    So Parliment just over-rides the referendum...

    Yeah, thats not going to have consquences...
    It might have the consequence of encouraging Leave supporting MPs to vote in favour of a deal that takes us out of the EU. Would that be so bad?
    As I said, there are not enough of them. The majority want to Remain. They are just too cowardly to actually make it happen themselves and want a smoke screen so they can claim to the electorate it wasn't their fault.
    According to Rentoul there are 300 MPs who want EUref2 with a Remain option, more than the 220 MPs who back May's Deal or the 119 MPs who back No Deal.

    If May's Deal is voted down May might see proposing a Leave with the Deal or No Deal referendum as the only way to try and see off MPs voting for EUref2 with a Remain option if both Deal and No Deal MPs back the former given combined they have more than those backing EUref2 with a Remain option
    A referendum without a Remain option would be an utter nonsense.

    As would a referendum with a No Deal option – given that a vast majority of MPs oppose such an outcome.

    A viable – and perfectly democratic – option would be Deal vs Remain.
    Rubbish, we have already had our remain/leave referendum ,it should be May's deal or no deal.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    murali_s said:

    We now go live to Brexit

    image

    LOL!. Who is this moronic idiot? Never heard of her!
    Why don't you go on her radio show and tell her to her face,she would run rings round you.
    Yes, she is well know for commanding the intellectual high ground...

    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/omagh-bomb-victims-dad-hits-out-at-broadcaster-hartleybrewers-insensitive-tweet-37213367.html
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,769
    Wondering if May would resign if that were the price for securing her deal.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    I think one problem No Dealers have is that they (mostly) rejected the option of staying in the Single Market as not fulfilling the referendum despite it technically fulfilling the text we voted on, because keeping FoM wouldn't be in keeping with the spirit of what we voted for. The reasoning behind this is usually either "because that's not the vision the Leave campaign was selling" or "because that's just what I feel". But the exact same reasoning can be used by Dealers and Remainers to say that No Deal isn't in keeping with the spirit of what we voted for.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,440
    edited January 2019
    Polruan said:

    Polruan said:

    What do you perceive as the differences between the taxes applying to Big Online Electronics Seller A and those applying to Big Bricks-and-Mortar Electronics Seller B at present? Assuming U.K. purchaser, all duties and VAT accounted for in accordance with the law as it stands?

    Business Rates (NNDR).

    These can be thousands a month for even relatively small businesses and are payable whether profit-making or not. It is a tax paid only by bricks and mortar and used to fund local services (including to my knowledge road maintenance and street lighting that the online seller is using but not paying for).
    Sorry, I thought you were talking about the wider tax structure adopted by each and/or VAT.

    It doesn’t seem wrong in principle that businesses pay some level of tax based on their physical location to cover the impacts there. Online businesses don’t have those impacts: their equivalent impacts are on transport infrastructure (should be dealt with via the tax regime applicable to logistics businesses) and in the area surrounding their distribution centres (should be dealt with by taxes relevant to that location).

    I don’t know how warehouse and distribution facilities are treated for NNDR purposes, and can see that NNDR for small shops may be disproportionately high regardless of the online threat, but overall the situation seems to be a fair consequence of the economic reality of the different business models, not an unfair advantage granted to online.
    I was, NNDR is part of the wider tax structure; and I completely disagree. NNDR is used to fund local services including local road maintenance, now in the 20th century that made sense. But do you honestly claim that Amazon are only having a local impact on roads and services like that where their warehouse is located? Currently bricks and mortar shops are literally paying for the maintenance of roads etc that Amazon's fleet of delivery vehicles use free of charge.

    Local businesses don't have a negative impact on the local area, quite the opposite. They provide jobs, opportunities, social bonding etc in a way that megacorporations just don't. Do we want to view local businesses as a burden on society that need taxing more than megacorporations? I don't think so.

    If we view local businesses as a burden then yes tax them more than online. But be clear we are giving a competitive tax advantage to online.

    If we view local businesses as at worst neutral (let alone a positive) then tax them the same as online. Which means no land taxes.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Chris said:

    Oh - and does an extension really require the approval of Parliament? I mean in legal terms.

    It would require amending existing legislation, so regardless of whether asking the EU requires approval, for the extension to happen Parliament has to vote for it.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,615



    just catching up since Ive been out all morning, but is this the same Estonia which is currently at the centre of the largest money laundering scandal in Europe atm ?

    Estonian branch, but of a Danish bank.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,811

    I think one problem No Dealers have is that they (mostly) rejected the option of staying in the Single Market as not fulfilling the referendum despite it technically fulfilling the text we voted on, because keeping FoM wouldn't be in keeping with the spirit of what we voted for. The reasoning behind this is usually either "because that's not the vision the Leave campaign was selling" or "because that's just what I feel". But the exact same reasoning can be used by Dealers and Remainers to say that No Deal isn't in keeping with the spirit of what we voted for.

    Just goes to show how easy it is to reject something, rather than get an agreement.
  • TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    Do you think May will take it off the table next week? It'll infuriate the Brexit Buccaneers, but since she knows they have no power to stop her, I think it'd be a good show of faith to Parliament, the EU and the country.
    Again we come back to how though?

    She cannot take it off the table unless she gets Parliament to endorse an alternative. Because if we do not have an agreement by 29th March, No Deal happens whether we want it or not.
    The betting markets completely disagree with that. The last time I looked, the implied probability of Parliament endorsing an agreement by 29 March was about 1/3, and the implied probability of our leaving on 29 March was also about 1/3.

    The betting markets believe that if we do not have an agreement by 29 March, then Brexit won't happen on schedule.
    Well they are wrong. There has to be a majority in Parliament for something to happen before then or No Deal is the default option. Even obtaining an extension requires Parliament to actually agree something.
    Does it? What's to stop her/the executive just asking Brussels for one? The WA I get, but an extension?
    Sorry Topping I was not clear. What I was referring to was that the EU have already made it clear they will not just grant an extension for no reason. Unless May can show that there is a real change in prospect, rather than more of the same internal wrangling they have said they would not consider an extension.

    As I said a couple of weeks ago the EU have played the whole negotiations with a pretty straight bat and I see no reason to doubt them on this particular instance.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,536

    Sean_F said:

    Polruan said:

    Nice to see a tax article - thanks @alanbrooke - and the linked Guardian piece is also well worth a read.

    I think the point about concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals using secrecy jurisdictions is well made but the link between that issue and the taxation of large MNCs is perhaps more tenuous. There has been ontemplate.

    As @edmundintokyo points out, looking at individual income, wealth and consumption taxes is probably the best bet.

    Didn't Osborne float the idea of a General Anti-Avoidance Rule [GAAR]? They work well in many countries, but are maybe a bit despotic and arbitrary for British tastes.

    Personally I'd go for it. Would put a lot of lawyers out of work for a start, and that has to be a good thing.
    No, it would put a lot of lawyers in work.
    Osborne not only floated the idea of a General Anti-Avoidance Rule, he implemented it. It's been part of UK tax law since 2013:

    https://www.rossmartin.co.uk/penalties-a-compliance/compliance/1259-general-anti-abuse-rule-gaar-at-a-glance

    Overall the UK government has been pretty aggressive on tax avoidance schemes.
    Active certainly, aggressive Id question . However one of the issues from reading through the literature is the way as one loophole closes another opens up.

    In the taxation arms race the revenue is being outspent by big corporations using lots of blokes with pointy heabs and devious minds.

    There is no simple answer to this imo except maybe licence who can submit a return and make good behaviour an prerequisite to retaining their licence.
  • TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    Do you think May will take it off the table next week? It'll infuriate the Brexit Buccaneers, but since she knows they have no power to stop her, I think it'd be a good show of faith to Parliament, the EU and the country.
    Again we come back to how though?

    She cannot take it off the table unless she gets Parliament to endorse an alternative. Because if we do not have an agreement by 29th March, No Deal happens whether we want it or not.
    The betting markets completely disagree with that. The last time I looked, the implied probability of Parliament endorsing an agreement by 29 March was about 1/3, and the implied probability of our leaving on 29 March was also about 1/3.

    The betting markets believe that if we do not have an agreement by 29 March, then Brexit won't happen on schedule.
    Well they are wrong. There has to be a majority in Parliament for something to happen before then or No Deal is the default option. Even obtaining an extension requires Parliament to actually agree something.
    Of course that's true. But it doesn't follow from it that the betting markets are wrong. That depends on our estimates of the probabilities involved, doesn't it?

    I'd have thought whether the betting markets are right or wrong should be meat and drink here. But people seem much more interested in endless, pointless arguments about whether Brexit itself is right or wrong.
    "Well they are wrong" = Tyndall's net worth staked on this knowledge.

    Am I right Richard?
    I will happily stake all my debts on it :)

    But I have given a proper answer in the previous comment a moment ago.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,505
    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    Polruan said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    I was rather referring to his claim that it is. Generally his predictions have not been well received on here.
    No, it isn't off the table, and nor can Theresa May take it off the table. She can say she doesn't want it to happen, more firmly than she has already said that, but unless and until parliament decides which of the existing deal or cancelling Brexit it does want, rather than what it doesn't want, then No Deal remains a clear and present danger.
    She can take it off the table by bringing forward legislation that says on ere’s not, it won’t.
    So Parliment just over-rides the referendum...

    Yeah, thats not going to have consquences...
    It might have the consequence of encouraging Leave supporting MPs to vote in favour of a deal that takes us out of the EU. Would that be so bad?
    As I said, there are not enough of them. The majority want to Remain. They are just too cowardly to actually make it happen themselves and want a smoke screen so they can claim to the electorate it wasn't their fault.
    According to Rentoul there are 300 MPs who want EUref2 with a Remain option, more than the 220 MPs who back May's Deal or the 119 MPs who back No Deal.

    If May's Deal is voted down May might see proposing a Leave with the Deal or No Deal referendum as the only way to try and see off MPs voting for EUref2 with a Remain option if both Deal and No Deal MPs back the former given combined they have more than those backing EUref2 with a Remain option
    A referendum without a Remain option would be an utter nonsense.

    As would a referendum with a No Deal option – given that a vast majority of MPs oppose such an outcome.

    A viable – and perfectly democratic – option would be Deal vs Remain.
    We had a refererendum with a Remain option in 2016, Remain lost.

    We should only be deciding on the method of Leaving, Deal or No Deal
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    I think one problem No Dealers have is that they (mostly) rejected the option of staying in the Single Market as not fulfilling the referendum despite it technically fulfilling the text we voted on, because keeping FoM wouldn't be in keeping with the spirit of what we voted for. The reasoning behind this is usually either "because that's not the vision the Leave campaign was selling" or "because that's just what I feel". But the exact same reasoning can be used by Dealers and Remainers to say that No Deal isn't in keeping with the spirit of what we voted for.

    Spot on.

    If we had compromised on SM+CU a year ago, we'd all be getting on with our lives now. Sadly, such a sensible approach was beyond the hardliners, who obsessed about FoM. This was not on the ballot paper, and no end of bloody word clouds can alter that clear truth.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,505

    HYUFD said:

    Polruan said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    I was rather referring to his claim that it is. Generally his predictions have not been well received on here.
    No, it isn't off the table, and nor can Theresa May take it off the table. She can say she doesn't want it to happen, more firmly than she has already said that, but unless and until parliament decides which of the existing deal or cancelling Brexit it does want, rather than what it doesn't want, then No Deal remains a clear and present danger.
    She can take it off the table by bringing forward legislation that says on 29 March 2019 the U.K. will unilaterally revoke its A50 notification unless either a withdrawal agreement has been signed, or the A50 deadline has been extended with the agreement of the EU. If there’s a parliamentary majority in favour of ruling out no deal, that legislation would be passed. If there’s not, it won’t.
    So Parliment just over-rides the referendum...

    Yeah, thats not going to have consquences...
    It might have the consequence of encouraging Leave supporting MPs to vote in favour of a deal that takes us out of the EU. Would that be so bad?
    As I said, there are not enough of them. The majority want to Remain. They are just too cowardly to actually make it happen themselves and want a smoke screen so they can claim to the electorate it wasn't their fault.
    According to Rentoul there are 300 MPs who want EUref2 with a Remain option, more than the 220 MPs who back May's Deal or the 119 MPs who back No Deal.

    If May's Deal is voted down May might see proposing a Leave with the Deal or No Deal referendum as the only way to try and see off MPs voting for EUref2 with a Remain option if both Deal and No Deal MPs back the former given combined they have more than those backing EUref2 with a Remain option
    But Remainers have an incentive to back a Remain vs. Deal referendum, whereas No Dealers have no incentive to back a Deal vs. No Deal referendum, since No Deal is the default we're heading for.
    They do if the only alternative is the Commons voting for EUref2 with a Remain option or to revoke Article 50
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    HYUFD said:

    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    Polruan said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    I was rather referring to his claim that it is. Generally his predictions have not been well received on here.
    No, it isn't off the table, and nor can Theresa May take it off the table. She can say she doesn't want it to happen, more firmly than she has already said that, but unless and until parliament decides which of the existing deal or cancelling Brexit it does want, rather than what it doesn't want, then No Deal remains a clear and present danger.
    She can take it off the table by bringing forward legislation that says on ere’s not, it won’t.
    So Parliment just over-rides the referendum...

    Yeah, thats not going to have consquences...
    It might have the consequence of encouraging Leave supporting MPs to vote in favour of a deal that takes us out of the EU. Would that be so bad?
    As I said, there are not enough of them. The majority want to Remain. They are just too cowardly to actually make it happen themselves and want a smoke screen so they can claim to the electorate it wasn't their fault.
    According to Rentoul there are 300 MPs who want EUref2 with a Remain option, more than the 220 MPs who back May's Deal or the 119 MPs who back No Deal.

    If May's Deal is voted down May might see proposing a Leave with the Deal or No Deal referendum as the only way to try and see off MPs voting for EUref2 with a Remain option if both Deal and No Deal MPs back the former given combined they have more than those backing EUref2 with a Remain option
    A referendum without a Remain option would be an utter nonsense.

    As would a referendum with a No Deal option – given that a vast majority of MPs oppose such an outcome.

    A viable – and perfectly democratic – option would be Deal vs Remain.
    We had a refererendum with a Remain option in 2016, Remain lost.

    We should only be deciding on the method of Leaving, Deal or No Deal
    No Deal is not viable.

    So, leave with a defined Deal or Remain. If the Leave deal is good enough, it will win, and Leavers have nothing to worry about from a new poll.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,505
    Anazina said:

    I think one problem No Dealers have is that they (mostly) rejected the option of staying in the Single Market as not fulfilling the referendum despite it technically fulfilling the text we voted on, because keeping FoM wouldn't be in keeping with the spirit of what we voted for. The reasoning behind this is usually either "because that's not the vision the Leave campaign was selling" or "because that's just what I feel". But the exact same reasoning can be used by Dealers and Remainers to say that No Deal isn't in keeping with the spirit of what we voted for.

    Spot on.

    If we had compromised on SM+CU a year ago, we'd all be getting on with our lives now. Sadly, such a sensible approach was beyond the hardliners, who obsessed about FoM. This was not on the ballot paper, and no end of bloody word clouds can alter that clear truth.
    SM + CU is the EU in all but name
  • Sean_F said:

    Polruan said:

    Nice to see a tax article - thanks @alanbrooke - and the linked Guardian piece is also well worth a read.

    I think the point about concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals using secrecy jurisdictions is well made but the link between that issue and the taxation of large MNCs is perhaps more tenuous. There has been ontemplate.

    As @edmundintokyo points out, looking at individual income, wealth and consumption taxes is probably the best bet.

    Didn't Osborne float the idea of a General Anti-Avoidance Rule [GAAR]? They work well in many countries, but are maybe a bit despotic and arbitrary for British tastes.

    Personally I'd go for it. Would put a lot of lawyers out of work for a start, and that has to be a good thing.
    No, it would put a lot of lawyers in work.
    Osborne not only floated the idea of a General Anti-Avoidance Rule, he implemented it. It's been part of UK tax law since 2013:

    https://www.rossmartin.co.uk/penalties-a-compliance/compliance/1259-general-anti-abuse-rule-gaar-at-a-glance

    Overall the UK government has been pretty aggressive on tax avoidance schemes.
    Active certainly, aggressive Id question . However one of the issues from reading through the literature is the way as one loophole closes another opens up.

    In the taxation arms race the revenue is being outspent by big corporations using lots of blokes with pointy heabs and devious minds.

    There is no simple answer to this imo except maybe licence who can submit a return and make good behaviour an prerequisite to retaining their licence.
    I thought they tried to deal with this by making accountants legally responsible for the submissions of their clients. Certainly when I chose an accountant I signed an agreement that we would both abide by the spirit and the letter of the law. But they were pretty much all ex-tax inspectors.

    It does mean I sleep at night knowing I am unlikely to fall foul of HMRC
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    FPT
    Nigelb said:

    » show previous quotes
    She never faced a situation where the executive effectively paralysed Parliament for weeks at a time on the most contentious issue of the day.
    Major played a much straighter hand on Maastricht.

    He was right to thwart the cheating Tories. No way should they be able to gerrymander parliament the way they have been doing.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Anazina said:

    murali_s said:

    We now go live to Brexit

    image

    LOL!. Who is this moronic idiot? Never heard of her!
    Why don't you go on her radio show and tell her to her face,she would run rings round you.
    Yes, she is well know for commanding the intellectual high ground...

    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/omagh-bomb-victims-dad-hits-out-at-broadcaster-hartleybrewers-insensitive-tweet-37213367.html
    Intellectual count -

    A woman who has her own radio show/probably a newspaper column or someone trying to take the pi$$ on the internet, it's a hard one.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,118
    edited January 2019
    Its ok everybody, Magic Grandpa will step in and sort it no problemo,

    In a speech, he said a new government would have a fresh mandate to negotiate a better withdrawal deal with the EU.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46824125
  • Its ok everybody, Magic Grandpa will step in and sort it no problemo,

    In a speech, he said a new government would have a fresh mandate to negotiate a better withdrawal deal with the EU.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46824125

    I hope someone tells the EU this. :)
  • Anazina said:

    I think one problem No Dealers have is that they (mostly) rejected the option of staying in the Single Market as not fulfilling the referendum despite it technically fulfilling the text we voted on, because keeping FoM wouldn't be in keeping with the spirit of what we voted for. The reasoning behind this is usually either "because that's not the vision the Leave campaign was selling" or "because that's just what I feel". But the exact same reasoning can be used by Dealers and Remainers to say that No Deal isn't in keeping with the spirit of what we voted for.

    Spot on.

    If we had compromised on SM+CU a year ago, we'd all be getting on with our lives now. Sadly, such a sensible approach was beyond the hardliners, who obsessed about FoM. This was not on the ballot paper, and no end of bloody word clouds can alter that clear truth.
    Yes. We also may as well have remained in the EU.

    Can you give me an explanation as to how SM+CU is better than EU membership?

    There are costs and benefits to leaving but as far as I can tell SM+CU has costs but no benefits which should patently rule it out as an absurd option.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    I've decided that being on PB is doing me no good, so I'm going to take a break for a while.

    Have fun everyone, whether remainer, leaver, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem. And yes, even SNP. ;)

    Have fun and come back soon
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    HYUFD said:


    They do if the only alternative is the Commons voting for EUref2 with a Remain option or to revoke Article 50

    Hm, so you're thinking May would reach out to the No Dealers first, with the threat of reaching out to Remainers if they refuse? You're right, that's possible. My feeling is that it's not likely given her MO and the apparent self-destructive urges the ERG seem to have, but I couldn't rule it out.

    Do you have a link to the breakdown of Rentoul's numbers by the way? Not convinced she'd actually be able to build a majority for a Deal vs. No Deal referendum even if she tried.

  • I've decided that being on PB is doing me no good, so I'm going to take a break for a while.

    Have fun everyone, whether remainer, leaver, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem. And yes, even SNP. ;)

    I am sorry to hear that. These are stressful times but everyone's contributions help to widen discussion and views

    Please come back soon. Best wishes
    With Corbyn still plugging away for an election that won't come, we could probably all usefully take a pause. See you once the outcome of the Meaningful Vote is known.....
    Very sensible, Mark. Look forward to reading a refreshed MM in a short while.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    Polruan said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    I was rather referring to his claim that it is. Generally his predictions have not been well received on here.
    No, it isn't off the table, and nor can Theresa May take it off the table. She can say she doesn't want it to happen, more firmly than she has already said that, but unless and until parliament decides which of the existing deal or cancelling Brexit it does want, rather than what it doesn't want, then No Deal remains a clear and present danger.
    She can take it off the table by bringing forward legislation that says on ere’s not, it won’t.
    So Parliment just over-rides the referendum...

    Yeah, thats not going to have consquences...
    It might have the consequence of encouraging Leave supporting MPs to vote in favour of a deal that takes us out of the EU. Would that be so bad?
    As I said, there are not enough of them. The majority want to Remain. They are just too cowardly to actually make it happen themselves and want a smoke screen so they can claim to the electorate it wasn't their fault.
    According to Rentoul there are 300 MPs who want EUref2 with a Remain option, more than the 220 MPs who back May's Deal or the 119 MPs who back No Deal.

    SNIP
    A referendum without a Remain option would be an utter nonsense.

    As would a referendum with a No Deal option – given that a vast majority of MPs oppose such an outcome.

    A viable – and perfectly democratic – option would be Deal vs Remain.
    We had a refererendum with a Remain option in 2016, Remain lost.

    We should only be deciding on the method of Leaving, Deal or No Deal
    SNIP

    So, leave with a defined Deal or Remain. If the Leave deal is good enough, it will win, and Leavers have nothing to worry about from a new poll.
    Issue is it is not a deal , it just gives some time, we pay up a shedload and they hold a gun to our heads till we sign away everything on the real trade deal. Any idiot that votes for that needs shooting. Far better a chance on the unknown than certain hari kari.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,536

    I've decided that being on PB is doing me no good, so I'm going to take a break for a while.

    Have fun everyone, whether remainer, leaver, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem. And yes, even SNP. ;)

    best wishes JJ

    sorry to see yougo, come back refreshed
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,490

    Anazina said:

    murali_s said:

    We now go live to Brexit

    image

    LOL!. Who is this moronic idiot? Never heard of her!
    Why don't you go on her radio show and tell her to her face,she would run rings round you.
    Yes, she is well know for commanding the intellectual high ground...

    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/omagh-bomb-victims-dad-hits-out-at-broadcaster-hartleybrewers-insensitive-tweet-37213367.html
    Intellectual count -

    A woman who has her own radio show/probably a newspaper column or someone trying to take the pi$$ on the internet, it's a hard one.
    I have no idea who would 'win' a debate between Bobjob and Brewer, but intellectual capacity =/= ability to self publicise or Felix Kjellberg would be the world's smartest man..
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 2,506
    HYUFD said:

    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    Polruan said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    I was rather referring to his claim that it is. Generally his predictions have not been well received on here.
    No, it isn't off the table, and nor can Theresa May take it off the table. She can say she doesn't want it to happen, more firmly than she has already said that, but unless and until parliament decides which of the existing deal or cancelling Brexit it does want, rather than what it doesn't want, then No Deal remains a clear and present danger.
    She can take it off the table by bringing forward legislation that says on ere’s not, it won’t.
    So Parliment just over-rides the referendum...

    Yeah, thats not going to have consquences...
    It might have the consequence of encouraging Leave supporting MPs to vote in favour of a deal that takes us out of the EU. Would that be so bad?
    As I said, there are not enough of them. The majority want to Remain. They are just too cowardly to actually make it happen themselves and want a smoke screen so they can claim to the electorate it wasn't their fault.
    According to Rentoul there are 300 MPs who want EUref2 with a Remain option, more than the 220 MPs who back May's Deal or the 119 MPs who back No Deal.

    If May's Deal is voted down May might see proposing a Leave with the Deal or No Deal referendum as the only way to try and see off MPs voting for EUref2 with a Remain option if both Deal and No Deal MPs back the former given combined they have more than those backing EUref2 with a Remain option
    A referendum without a Remain option would be an utter nonsense.

    As would a referendum with a No Deal option – given that a vast majority of MPs oppose such an outcome.

    A viable – and perfectly democratic – option would be Deal vs Remain.
    We had a refererendum with a Remain option in 2016, Remain lost.

    We should only be deciding on the method of Leaving, Deal or No Deal
    We had a referendum with a Leave option in 1975, Leave lost.
  • Its ok everybody, Magic Grandpa will step in and sort it no problemo,

    In a speech, he said a new government would have a fresh mandate to negotiate a better withdrawal deal with the EU.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46824125

    I hope someone tells the EU this. :)
    He really has become a complete irrelevance.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    edited January 2019

    Anazina said:

    murali_s said:

    We now go live to Brexit

    image

    LOL!. Who is this moronic idiot? Never heard of her!
    Why don't you go on her radio show and tell her to her face,she would run rings round you.
    Yes, she is well know for commanding the intellectual high ground...

    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/omagh-bomb-victims-dad-hits-out-at-broadcaster-hartleybrewers-insensitive-tweet-37213367.html
    Intellectual count -

    A woman who has her own radio show/probably a newspaper column or someone trying to take the pi$$ on the internet, it's a hard one.
    Having a radio show is a measure of intellectual acumen? News to me.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i97syeSYbR8
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,450
    Pulpstar said:

    Anazina said:

    murali_s said:

    We now go live to Brexit

    image

    LOL!. Who is this moronic idiot? Never heard of her!
    Why don't you go on her radio show and tell her to her face,she would run rings round you.
    Yes, she is well know for commanding the intellectual high ground...

    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/omagh-bomb-victims-dad-hits-out-at-broadcaster-hartleybrewers-insensitive-tweet-37213367.html
    Intellectual count -

    A woman who has her own radio show/probably a newspaper column or someone trying to take the pi$$ on the internet, it's a hard one.
    I have no idea who would 'win' a debate between Bobjob and Brewer, but intellectual capacity =/= ability to self publicise or Felix Kjellberg would be the world's smartest man..
    +1
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,536



    just catching up since Ive been out all morning, but is this the same Estonia which is currently at the centre of the largest money laundering scandal in Europe atm ?

    Estonian branch, but of a Danish bank.
    not just Danish, it seems to go right across Europe with Deutsche bank heavily involved,.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,490
    edited January 2019
    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    murali_s said:

    We now go live to Brexit

    image

    LOL!. Who is this moronic idiot? Never heard of her!
    Why don't you go on her radio show and tell her to her face,she would run rings round you.
    Yes, she is well know for commanding the intellectual high ground...

    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/omagh-bomb-victims-dad-hits-out-at-broadcaster-hartleybrewers-insensitive-tweet-37213367.html
    Intellectual count -

    A woman who has her own radio show/probably a newspaper column or someone trying to take the pi$$ on the internet, it's a hard one.
    Having a radio show is a measure of intellectual acumen? News to me.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i97syeSYbR8
    Hah yes indeed. We can find quick and easy examples to disprove @Tykejohno nonsense:

    Followers on twitter:

    Magnus Carlsen 215,000.
    Katy Perry 104,000,000.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    SeanT said:

    Anazina said:

    I think one problem No Dealers have is that they (mostly) rejected the option of staying in the Single Market as not fulfilling the referendum despite it technically fulfilling the text we voted on, because keeping FoM wouldn't be in keeping with the spirit of what we voted for. The reasoning behind this is usually either "because that's not the vision the Leave campaign was selling" or "because that's just what I feel". But the exact same reasoning can be used by Dealers and Remainers to say that No Deal isn't in keeping with the spirit of what we voted for.

    Spot on.

    If we had compromised on SM+CU a year ago, we'd all be getting on with our lives now. Sadly, such a sensible approach was beyond the hardliners, who obsessed about FoM. This was not on the ballot paper, and no end of bloody word clouds can alter that clear truth.
    Yes. We also may as well have remained in the EU.

    Can you give me an explanation as to how SM+CU is better than EU membership?

    There are costs and benefits to leaving but as far as I can tell SM+CU has costs but no benefits which should patently rule it out as an absurd option.
    Indeed. Given the choice between this and Remain I would clearly choose Remain. If this really is the choice bring on the 2nd vote and let us meekly change our minds. Indeed why not just revoke.

    My guess is that the hardcore Remoaners would soon be pushing for another referendum on just this basis (this is so shit and inferior we might as well rejoin) and they would win.
    All these arguments are fine and dandy, but the point is we never determined that the electorate agreed with them in a referendum. So we never democratically ruled out a SM+CU Brexit, instead we ruled it out with arguments like "It's not what Leave campaigned for", "It'd do more harm than good", "I just don't think it's what the electorate meant when they voted Leave". And the point is those same arguments can be used to rule out a No Deal Brexit (given that the second and third points are based on prediction and opinion, which will be different depending on who you ask... and, again, we never asked the electorate).
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Anazina said:

    I think one problem No Dealers have is that they (mostly) rejected the option of staying in the Single Market as not fulfilling the referendum despite it technically fulfilling the text we voted on, because keeping FoM wouldn't be in keeping with the spirit of what we voted for. The reasoning behind this is usually either "because that's not the vision the Leave campaign was selling" or "because that's just what I feel". But the exact same reasoning can be used by Dealers and Remainers to say that No Deal isn't in keeping with the spirit of what we voted for.

    Spot on.

    If we had compromised on SM+CU a year ago, we'd all be getting on with our lives now. Sadly, such a sensible approach was beyond the hardliners, who obsessed about FoM. This was not on the ballot paper, and no end of bloody word clouds can alter that clear truth.
    Yes. We also may as well have remained in the EU.

    Can you give me an explanation as to how SM+CU is better than EU membership?

    There are costs and benefits to leaving but as far as I can tell SM+CU has costs but no benefits which should patently rule it out as an absurd option.
    The benefits (for Leavers) of SM+CU would be:
    1. Out of the political institutions and future integration.
    2. Out of the Common Agricultural Policy (the largest financial cost).
    3. Out of the Common Fisheries Policy.
    4. Brexit would happen in a way that wouldn't cause economic dislocation, making it easier to argue for and move to a looser arrangement in future if desired.

    Tories used to be good at this sort of salami-slicing tactic. Since when did they become Great Leap Maoists?
  • HYUFD said:

    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    Polruan said:

    Given the view most people have of AEP on here, should those opposed to a No Deal be very worried by his latest contribution?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/10/no-deal-brexit-table-sterling-assets-screaming-buy/

    He's dead right - IF a no-deal Brexit is off the table.
    I was rather referring to his claim that it is. Generally his predictions have not been well received on here.
    No, it isn't off the table, and nor can Theresa May take it off the table. She can say she doesn't want it to happen, more firmly than she has already said that, but unless and until parliament decides which of the existing deal or cancelling Brexit it does want, rather than what it doesn't want, then No Deal remains a clear and present danger.
    She can take it off the table by bringing forward legislation that says on ere’s not, it won’t.
    So Parliment just over-rides the referendum...

    Yeah, thats not going to have consquences...
    It might have the consequence of encouraging Leave supporting MPs to vote in favour of a deal that takes us out of the EU. Would that be so bad?
    As I said, there are not enough of them. The majority want to Remain. They are just too cowardly to actually make it happen themselves and want a smoke screen so they can claim to the electorate it wasn't their fault.
    According to Rentoul there are 300 MPs who want EUref2 with a Remain option, more than the 220 MPs who back May's Deal or the 119 MPs who back No Deal.

    If May's Deal is voted down May might see proposing a Leave with the Deal or No Deal referendum as the only way to try and see off MPs voting for EUref2 with a Remain option if both Deal and No Deal MPs back the former given combined they have more than those backing EUref2 with a Remain option
    A referendum without a Remain option would be an utter nonsense.

    As would a referendum with a No Deal option – given that a vast majority of MPs oppose such an outcome.

    A viable – and perfectly democratic – option would be Deal vs Remain.
    We had a refererendum with a Remain option in 2016, Remain lost.

    We should only be deciding on the method of Leaving, Deal or No Deal
    We had a referendum with a Leave option in 1975, Leave lost.
    On the EEC. Not with the Treaty of Lisbon-including European Union.
  • Anazina said:

    I think one problem No Dealers have is that they (mostly) rejected the option of staying in the Single Market as not fulfilling the referendum despite it technically fulfilling the text we voted on, because keeping FoM wouldn't be in keeping with the spirit of what we voted for. The reasoning behind this is usually either "because that's not the vision the Leave campaign was selling" or "because that's just what I feel". But the exact same reasoning can be used by Dealers and Remainers to say that No Deal isn't in keeping with the spirit of what we voted for.

    Spot on.

    If we had compromised on SM+CU a year ago, we'd all be getting on with our lives now. Sadly, such a sensible approach was beyond the hardliners, who obsessed about FoM. This was not on the ballot paper, and no end of bloody word clouds can alter that clear truth.
    Yes. We also may as well have remained in the EU.

    Can you give me an explanation as to how SM+CU is better than EU membership?

    There are costs and benefits to leaving but as far as I can tell SM+CU has costs but no benefits which should patently rule it out as an absurd option.
    The benefits (for Leavers) of SM+CU would be:
    1. Out of the political institutions and future integration.
    2. Out of the Common Agricultural Policy (the largest financial cost).
    3. Out of the Common Fisheries Policy.
    4. Brexit would happen in a way that wouldn't cause economic dislocation, making it easier to argue for and move to a looser arrangement in future if desired.

    Tories used to be good at this sort of salami-slicing tactic. Since when did they become Great Leap Maoists?
    Spot on.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,451

    Chris said:

    Oh - and does an extension really require the approval of Parliament? I mean in legal terms.

    It would require amending existing legislation, so regardless of whether asking the EU requires approval, for the extension to happen Parliament has to vote for it.
    But that can be done by regulations, can't it, rather than by an Act of Parliament? It wouldn't require the active approval of Parliament, would it?
This discussion has been closed.