Pre-election party conferences

[pap]

and your fully worked up, proven elsewhere, alternative is....

 

You've demonstrated the folly of relying on your usual non-argument winner. You've clearly not considered the problems, or like me, you'd have immediate suggestions on how the democratic deficit might be overturned.

 

I think we can both agree that the issue is a lack of democratic accountability beyond the general election. There is presently no means for the electorate to remove a sitting MP, as we saw during the expenses scandal. The right to recall a sitting MP should be high on the list.

 

Next up we've got electoral reform, and the disenfranchisement of voters in approximately 500 of our 650 seats. The millions that lack any sort of similarly-leaning Westminster representation at all. The Conservative in Knowsley, the socialist in the home counties. These people may as well not vote. The political parties certainly only give a crap about the marginals, which means that the balance of power for the whole fúcking country is decided by people that are known for switching their vote.

 

As a final appetiser, I'd have referendums on the big stuff, like whether we go to war or not. We have repeatedly gone to war on dodgy or fabricated evidence, and the British public at large have to bear the consequences. That should be a decision for the people, not professional politicians.

 

Not a complete solution, but a few ideas that could immediately address some of the biggest problems with representative autocracy.

[OldNick]

"I shouldn't pay because I don't like the choice of wars". "I shouldn't pay because I think MPs are lazy". "I shouldn't pay because I've worked hard for my high paid job - and I shouldn't have paid when I was young and low paid either". They are all variants of not wanting to pull your weight - the kind of freeloading you nod and tut about when its someone else.

nonsense, people who pay tax pull their weight, period. Because some are more successful should they pay more is the question.

[buctootim]

You've demonstrated the folly of relying on your usual non-argument winner. You've clearly not considered the problems, or like me, you'd have immediate suggestions on how the democratic deficit might be overturned.

 

I think we can both agree that the issue is a lack of democratic accountability beyond the general election. There is presently no means for the electorate to remove a sitting MP, as we saw during the expenses scandal. The right to recall a sitting MP should be high on the list.

 

Next up we've got electoral reform, and the disenfranchisement of voters in approximately 500 of our 650 seats. The millions that lack any sort of similarly-leaning Westminster representation at all. The Conservative in Knowsley, the socialist in the home counties. These people may as well not vote. The political parties certainly only give a crap about the marginals, which means that the balance of power for the whole fúcking country is decided by people that are known for switching their vote.

 

As a final appetiser, I'd have referendums on the big stuff, like whether we go to war or not. We have repeatedly gone to war on dodgy or fabricated evidence, and the British public at large have to bear the consequences. That should be a decision for the people, not professional politicians.

 

Not a complete solution, but a few ideas that could immediately address some of the biggest problems with representative autocracy.

 

 

You make the grand sweeping statement of "Elections are there to provide the illusion of choice and give the teeniest veneer of legitimacy to whichever elected dictatorship happens to be in power". I say "whats your alternative?". I was expecting something radical, not simple fine tinkering with the mechanics of "elected dictatorship".

 

1. To remove MPs mid term in a way which furthers democracy instead of sabotaging it would be difficult, but not impossible. Whats your proposal?

2. Its sounds like you are advocating some kind of PR, which I agree with. However the electorate recently rejected one change - I cant see the issue coming up for debate again for another 10 years or so. Anyway you can argue swing voters have a moderating influence on politics. Two camps of people who will never agree with each other and wont change their mind is a recipe for civil war, or at least a perpetual dictatorship of the 51% over the 49%.

3. Referendums are no more democratic than elections without a balanced media.

Edited 3 October, 2014 by buctootim

[saintbletch]

Free school diners for rich kids, free TV licence for elderly rich people, winter fuel allowance for rich people, boob jobs on the nhs, child benefit for kids not in the uk, subsidised labour for multi national companies, some foreign aid, cut the number of sweaty MP's , the sovereign grant, quangos, public information stating the bleeding obvious. If you don't think we can save money you're deluded. This country takes enough of its citizens hard earned cash to look after the people who deserve it , and fund decent public services. The problem is two fold, one it's spread too thinly and two it's wasted by the clowns who take it from us.

 

It's a strange kind of "fair" that means some people have to pay a higher % of their earnings than others. To do so , and then still get critisised and vilified for being "rich" is a joke.

 

I must admit that when I was much younger I reached a similar conclusion about the unfairness of tax rates being different for different levels of earning. The very fact that by earning more you will pay more seemed reason enough.

 

I've since changed my mind, and look back realising that I hadn't thought it through. I think you're right that there is some sort of principle at the heart of the issue, but surely in practice it wouldn't work?

 

Then again, I envisage it failing because I wouldn't want to live in the sort of society it might create, but I can see how others may see the same society as evidence that such a tax scheme would work.

 

To my mind, it would 'work' even less if you combine it with the sort of slimmed down government that you seem to be advocating - one that believes that rather than the state providing many services for its citizens, the obligation should largely fall upon the individual to provide for themselves. Please correct me if I've got you wrong there; I'm assuming here that you are not advocating zero state involvement, but a significantly reduced level of services provided by the state and much of that reduction in the level of state benefit?

 

I also assume here that you would abolish the lower earnings limit - such that we all pay the same tax on all of our earnings? Otherwise this would seem to fail your test that someone earning £10,001 would pay tax at a different rate than someone on £10,000.

 

The biggest concern would be that those on lower incomes would be paying such a significant percentage of their earnings in taxation that they'd either not be able to fund a full and rewarding life, or that work would seem not worthwhile. Without a benefits safety net, I could envisage a chunk of our fellow citizens turning to a black economy or crime to make their way in the world. I can see two classes of citizen developing very quickly with a line between the two that would be very difficult to cross - in both ways.

 

Surely we each agree to pay higher rates of tax so that others may at least enjoy a minimum decent standard of life - and because at our level of higher earnings it hurts us much less to do so?

 

We do this when we enter the workforce thus taking advantage of the "unfairness" and then when we earn well later in our careers we fall victim to the "unfairness".

 

I have no research to back-up this feeling, so I'd be interested if you can provide some to the contrary. Are there for examples any countries that implement such a system?

 

Your comments about not trusting the politicians to spend it wisely I fully understand, but we have little choice. Do we?

[pap]

You make the grand sweeping statement of "Elections are there to provide the illusion of choice and give the teeniest veneer of legitimacy to whichever elected dictatorship happens to be in power". I say "whats your alternative?". I was kind of expecting something radical. Fine tinkering with the mechanics of elected democracy isnt.

 

1. To remove MPs mid term in a way which furthers democracy instead of sabotaging it would be difficult, but not impossible. Whats your proposal?

2. Its sounds like you are advocating some kind of PR, which I agree with. However the electorate recently rejected one change - I cant see the issue coming up for debate again for another 10 years or so. Anyway you can argue swing voters have a moderating influence on politics. Two camps of people who will never agree with each other and wont change their mind is a recipe for civil war.

3. Referendums are no more democratic than elections without a balanced media.

 

Well, it's an interesting post, if only for the points you acknowledge.

 

I'm glad to hear that you think we no longer have a balanced media. I completely agree, btw. Step number one would be to empower the likes of the ASA to call bullsh!t on referendum lies. The electorate were told babies and soldiers would die if they demanded that their MPs required a 50% threshold, and they believed it.

 

I don't know how you can equate the right of recall with the sabotage of democracy. When practiced elsewhere, it usually requires a certain threshold of the electorate to vote to recall an MP. Perhaps you'd like to explain how an electorate being able to shift manifesto-breakers goes against the principles of democracy, or would even damage it. Absent any strawman scenario you invent, I don't see the general problem.

[pap]

I must admit that when I was much younger I reached a similar conclusion about the unfairness of tax rates being different for different levels of earning. The very fact that by earning more you will pay more seemed reason enough.

 

I've since changed my mind, and look back realising that I hadn't thought it through. I think you're right that there is some sort of principle at the heart of the issue, but surely in practice it wouldn't work?

 

Then again, I envisage it failing because I wouldn't want to live in the sort of society it might create, but I can see how others may see the same society as evidence that such a tax scheme would work.

 

To my mind, it would 'work' even less if you combine it with the sort of slimmed down government that you seem to be advocating - one that believes that rather than the state providing many services for its citizens, the obligation should largely fall upon the individual to provide for themselves. Please correct me if I've got you wrong there; I'm assuming here that you are not advocating zero state involvement, but a significantly reduced level of services provided by the state and much of that reduction in the level of state benefit?

 

I also assume here that you would abolish the lower earnings limit - such that we all pay the same tax on all of our earnings? Otherwise this would seem to fail your test that someone earning £10,001 would pay tax at a different rate than someone on £10,000.

 

The biggest concern would be that those on lower incomes would be paying such a significant percentage of their earnings in taxation that they'd either not be able to fund a full and rewarding life, or that work would seem not worthwhile. Without a benefits safety net, I could envisage a chunk of our fellow citizens turning to a black economy or crime to make their way in the world. I can see two classes of citizen developing very quickly with a line between the two that would be very difficult to cross - in both ways.

 

Surely we each agree to pay higher rates of tax so that others may at least enjoy a minimum decent standard of life - and because at our level of higher earnings it hurts us much less to do so?

 

We do this when we enter the workforce thus taking advantage of the "unfairness" and then when we earn well later in our careers we fall victim to the "unfairness".

 

I have no research to back-up this feeling, so I'd be interested if you can provide some to the contrary. Are there for examples any countries that implement such a system?

 

Your comments about not trusting the politicians to spend it wisely I fully understand, but we have little choice. Do we?

 

I am in favour of one flat rate of tax to be paid by all.

 

Progressive taxation sounds super in theory, until you realise that we also have a ton of regressive taxes which the poor end up paying a lot of. One would assume that luxury goods would form part of bletch's handbook to a rewarding life and future happiness. That'll be 20% on top of whatever it costs, which is inflated because of all the fuel duty the vendor spent getting it here.

 

Beer, cigs and all the other little luxuries are all heavily taxed - and this is all against the very real backdrop of wages simply not being high enough. If they were, then corporate subsidies like Working Tax credits wouldn't exist. Regressive taxation undermines most of the stuff we're trying to achieve with progressive taxation, and the usual arguments for stuff like VAT simply don't wash. It isn't a means of making money from the non-domiciled; anyone from outside the EU can get the lot back. It's money for nothing, and no value has been added from a consumer perspective.

 

I would sooner have one simple, honest figure to pay for everyone - individual, small business or large corporate. Progressive or no, I reckon the real tax burden for the working Brit is approaching or exceeding 50% when you add up all the indirect stuff. Just be honest about it, tell us what we have to pay and give us the confidence to spend the rest.

[buctootim]

Step number one would be to empower the likes of the ASA to call bullsh!t on referendum lies. The electorate were told babies and soldiers would die if they demanded that their MPs required a 50% threshold, and they believed it.

 

Its almost impossible to ban free speech on the basis that you think a candidate is lying rather than simply genuinely held views you think are mistaken.

 

I don't know how you can equate the right of recall with the sabotage of democracy. When practiced elsewhere, it usually requires a certain threshold of the electorate to vote to recall an MP. Perhaps you'd like to explain how an electorate being able to shift manifesto-breakers goes against the principles of democracy, or would even damage it. Absent any strawman scenario you invent, I don't see the general problem.

 

Recall of an elected representive has to have a mechanism. Usually a petition for a recall vote has to be supported by a certain number of voters. What often happens in practice is that rival political parties organise recall votes as a means of political jockeying and creating pressure on incumbents. Do it often enough and you can effectively tie up elected representives in constantly fighting recall campaigns.

 

'''

Edited 3 October, 2014 by buctootim

[pap]

'''

 

So you'd deny the electorate the opportunity to recall a corrupt politicians because corrupt politicians might abuse the system?

 

Timinishing returns.

[buctootim]

So you'd deny the electorate the opportunity to recall a corrupt politicians because corrupt politicians might abuse the system?

 

Timinishing returns.

 

You default to sniping when you are unable to present substance to back up your ideas. Why is that? How would you get round the problem of misuse of the recall mechanism so that it supportsd democracy rather than subverting it?

[pap]

You default to sniping when you are unable to present substance to back up your ideas. Why is that? How would you get round the problem of misuse of the recall mechanism so that it supportsd democracy rather than subverting it?

 

If I wanted to snipe, I'd use high-grade ammunition, not these harmless pea-shot puns.

 

Thing is, if you dispense with wilful witlessness, most problems can be solved. Most recall mechanisms require a percentage of the citizenry to sign a recall petition. If that's successful, then they can vote to trigger the removal of the representative. Could a dumb populace be motivated into triggering endless recall elections? Sure, if you set the threshold too low or have a particularly pliable public. However, if you set the threshold to a level that suits both the public and the representatives can live with, democracy can be strengthened without entertaining endless politically motivated recall agendas. Or if you do, you have a significant proportion of the population that wants them out, and who are we to argue?

 

When you were gleefully stuffing the straw into the chest of this insoluble scarecrow, did you ever consider why politicians are recalled? Serious wrongdoing is at the heart of many. Jonathan Aitken got banged up in 1995, yet only lost his status as an MP when he lost his seat in 1997.

 

In the spirit of generosity, I'll concede that recall could weaken democracy if the scenario you pose, unending political upheaval because politicians are constantly being recalled, develops. I think you can probably work around that and that it's worth doing so. Far better than the current situation, which with the recent fixed five year terms, gives an MP five guaranteed years of immunity from the sack before having to be accountable to his or her employers. Nice work if you can get it.

Edited 3 October, 2014 by pap

[saintbletch]

I am in favour of one flat rate of tax to be paid by all.

 

Progressive taxation sounds super in theory, until you realise that we also have a ton of regressive taxes which the poor end up paying a lot of. One would assume that luxury goods would form part of bletch's handbook to a rewarding life and future happiness. That'll be 20% on top of whatever it costs, which is inflated because of all the fuel duty the vendor spent getting it here.

 

Beer, cigs and all the other little luxuries are all heavily taxed - and this is all against the very real backdrop of wages simply not being high enough. If they were, then corporate subsidies like Working Tax credits wouldn't exist. Regressive taxation undermines most of the stuff we're trying to achieve with progressive taxation, and the usual arguments for stuff like VAT simply don't wash. It isn't a means of making money from the non-domiciled; anyone from outside the EU can get the lot back. It's money for nothing, and no value has been added from a consumer perspective.

 

I would sooner have one simple, honest figure to pay for everyone - individual, small business or large corporate. Progressive or no, I reckon the real tax burden for the working Brit is approaching or exceeding 50% when you add up all the indirect stuff. Just be honest about it, tell us what we have to pay and give us the confidence to spend the rest.

 

I'd dismissed it as unworkable because of the very effect it would have to have on the minimum wage. Interesting.

 

OK papster, finger in the air - what would a minimum wage have to be in pap's world? And would that make it unworkable?

[Whitey Grandad]

I am in favour of one flat rate of tax to be paid by all.

 

Progressive taxation sounds super in theory, until you realise that we also have a ton of regressive taxes which the poor end up paying a lot of. One would assume that luxury goods would form part of bletch's handbook to a rewarding life and future happiness. That'll be 20% on top of whatever it costs, which is inflated because of all the fuel duty the vendor spent getting it here.

 

Beer, cigs and all the other little luxuries are all heavily taxed - and this is all against the very real backdrop of wages simply not being high enough. If they were, then corporate subsidies like Working Tax credits wouldn't exist. Regressive taxation undermines most of the stuff we're trying to achieve with progressive taxation, and the usual arguments for stuff like VAT simply don't wash. It isn't a means of making money from the non-domiciled; anyone from outside the EU can get the lot back. It's money for nothing, and no value has been added from a consumer perspective.

 

I would sooner have one simple, honest figure to pay for everyone - individual, small business or large corporate. Progressive or no, I reckon the real tax burden for the working Brit is approaching or exceeding 50% when you add up all the indirect stuff. Just be honest about it, tell us what we have to pay and give us the confidence to spend the rest.

 

This is one where I agree with you - scary

 

You're right about the overall burden, 50% is not far off but it depends on how you lump in all the various revenues. Don't forget the NI on earnings and alo the employer's contribution - that's part of your salary too and should be counted as such.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I totally disagree on the single tax rate.

 

One thing I can't see mentioned is the banding of it. So up to amount 'x' people pay 'y'%, as you earn more this increases over that threshold. So it is the same for everyone.

 

If you earn more, you do not pay the higher tax rate on all of your earnings, only on earnings over a certain level.

 

I do however, totally agree that taxpayers money is spent appallingly and there is simply far too much wastage. Too big a government, and too many vested interests. The NHS is a fantastic example, as I have rambled on about before (so won't do here again).

[pap]

I'd dismissed it as unworkable because of the very effect it would have to have on the minimum wage. Interesting.

 

OK papster, finger in the air - what would a minimum wage have to be in pap's world? And would that make it unworkable?

 

Lordy, bletch - there are other levers I'd like to pull first. I think you'd need to make housing affordable before setting any minimum wage, otherwise we'd be as uncompetitive as we are now. Why set a rate that pays a slum landlord £1000 a month when the value of the property has been artificially inflated through under-supply and the overabundance of credit in the mid-2000s.

 

The UK is presently poor value for money. The average worker cannot afford to live, largely through the inflated cost of housing - this is why everyone ends up paying through the likes of Working Tax Credits and Housing Benefit, which let's not forget, is mostly paid out to the working poor and effectively a subsidy to the banks and/or the corporations, whichever way you want to look at it. In an ideal world, a salary should be enough to cover housing expense, and if it isn't - then we need to determine why that is.

 

I'm not a fan of raising the minimum wage to bring it in line with the lofty expectations of the banks. It ultimately only creates more debt somewhere and will make the UK uncompetitive in the global economy. I'd instead like to see legislation aimed at bringing the cost of housing down, rent controls effectively, before setting any hard figures on how much it costs to live. If Government can mandate sensible pricing that allows people more of the rewarding life we all seek, and we know that it costs (say) £60 a week for a 1 bed flat, then it's a ton easier to arrive at a minimum wage figure. Under the rules of the free market, I've still got my finger in the air.

[pap]

I totally disagree on the single tax rate.

 

Fk me, mate. Are you implementing the "Gotham" style guide?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Fk me, mate. Are you implementing the "Gotham" style guide?

 

Yes?

 

I have no idea what you are talking about

[saintbletch]

Lordy, bletch - there are other levers I'd like to pull first. I think you'd need to make housing affordable before setting any minimum wage, otherwise we'd be as uncompetitive as we are now. Why set a rate that pays a slum landlord £1000 a month when the value of the property has been artificially inflated through under-supply and the overabundance of credit in the mid-2000s.

 

The UK is presently poor value for money. The average worker cannot afford to live, largely through the inflated cost of housing - this is why everyone ends up paying through the likes of Working Tax Credits and Housing Benefit, which let's not forget, is mostly paid out to the working poor and effectively a subsidy to the banks and/or the corporations, whichever way you want to look at it. In an ideal world, a salary should be enough to cover housing expense, and if it isn't - then we need to determine why that is.

 

I'm not a fan of raising the minimum wage to bring it in line with the lofty expectations of the banks. It ultimately only creates more debt somewhere and will make the UK uncompetitive in the global economy. I'd instead like to see legislation aimed at bringing the cost of housing down, rent controls effectively, before setting any hard figures on how much it costs to live. If Government can mandate sensible pricing that allows people more of the rewarding life we all seek, and we know that it costs (say) £60 a week for a 1 bed flat, then it's a ton easier to arrive at a minimum wage figure. Under the rules of the free market, I've still got my finger in the air.

 

I guess this all went into the pot before I determined it unworkable, papster.

 

Affordable rental property in London, without increasing the minimum wage?

 

Laudable objective, perhaps I should have said not in my lifetime?

[Lord Duckhunter]

I must admit that when I was much younger I reached a similar conclusion about the unfairness of tax rates being different for different levels of earning. The very fact that by earning more you will pay more seemed reason enough.

 

I've since changed my mind, and look back realising that I hadn't thought it through. I think you're right that there is some sort of principle at the heart of the issue, but surely in practice it wouldn't work?

 

Then again, I envisage it failing because I wouldn't want to live in the sort of society it might create, but I can see how others may see the same society as evidence that such a tax scheme would work.

 

To my mind, it would 'work' even less if you combine it with the sort of slimmed down government that you seem to be advocating - one that believes that rather than the state providing many services for its citizens, the obligation should largely fall upon the individual to provide for themselves. Please correct me if I've got you wrong there; I'm assuming here that you are not advocating zero state involvement, but a significantly reduced level of services provided by the state and much of that reduction in the level of state benefit?

 

I also assume here that you would abolish the lower earnings limit - such that we all pay the same tax on all of our earnings? Otherwise this would seem to fail your test that someone earning £10,001 would pay tax at a different rate than someone on £10,000.

 

The biggest concern would be that those on lower incomes would be paying such a significant percentage of their earnings in taxation that they'd either not be able to fund a full and rewarding life, or that work would seem not worthwhile. Without a benefits safety net, I could envisage a chunk of our fellow citizens turning to a black economy or crime to make their way in the world. I can see two classes of citizen developing very quickly with a line between the two that would be very difficult to cross - in both ways.

 

Surely we each agree to pay higher rates of tax so that others may at least enjoy a minimum decent standard of life - and because at our level of higher earnings it hurts us much less to do so?

 

We do this when we enter the workforce thus taking advantage of the "unfairness" and then when we earn well later in our careers we fall victim to the "unfairness".

 

I have no research to back-up this feeling, so I'd be interested if you can provide some to the contrary. Are there for examples any countries that implement such a system?

 

Your comments about not trusting the politicians to spend it wisely I fully understand, but we have little choice. Do we?

 

I'm not advocating flat tax , just pointing out that in the strictest sense if the word it is the " fairest" system. My main gripe is people bemoaning tax cuts for the highest earners as " unfair" , and how people who want lower taxes are somehow sticking up for the wrong people.

 

What seems to have been lost from the modern political debate is the argument that lower taxes will pay for themselves. That cutting taxes does not equate to cutting services. This was a debate that I thought had been won. I suspect deep down most politicians know it has, but play to the gallery . There was a reason labour kept top rates at 40%, they knew that's around the optimum figure to increase the take. Now its bash the rich and the Tories don't have the balls to make the case. I get the feeling that Red Ed would rather take 50% of a £1mil salary than 30% of 3 £1mil salaries . To him tax rates are symbolic, they are set to appease the socialist in him, not set to take in the most money.

 

Taxes are too high for the poor, too high for the ordinary and too high for the rich.

[buctootim]

I'm not advocating flat tax , just pointing out that in the strictest sense if the word it is the " fairest" system. My main gripe is people bemoaning tax cuts for the highest earners as " unfair" , and how people who want lower taxes are somehow sticking up for the wrong people.

 

What seems to have been lost from the modern political debate is the argument that lower taxes will pay for themselves. That cutting taxes does not equate to cutting services. This was a debate that I thought had been won. I suspect deep down most politicians know it has, but play to the gallery . There was a reason labour kept top rates at 40%, they knew that's around the optimum figure to increase the take. Now its bash the rich and the Tories don't have the balls to make the case. I get the feeling that Red Ed would rather take 50% of a £1mil salary than 30% of 3 £1mil salaries . To him tax rates are symbolic, they are set to appease the socialist in him, not set to take in the most money.

 

Taxes are too high for the poor, too high for the ordinary and too high for the rich.

 

Its not really about tax rates - its about avoidance of paying tax, regardless of what the rate is. On a rough estimate of profits being 10% of turnover and Corporation tax being 26% of profits the three below should have paid £164m, instead they paid £6m between them.

 

Edited 3 October, 2014 by buctootim

[pap]

I guess this all went into the pot before I determined it unworkable, papster.

 

Affordable rental property in London, without increasing the minimum wage?

 

Laudable objective, perhaps I should have said not in my lifetime?

 

Perhaps I'm over-simplifying, but ultimately, we're a society of law with a mechanism to change such law. I think it's entirely unreasonable that the working tax take is being paid as housing benefit to working people to support something that by dint of these hoops we've jumped through alone, is unsustainable.

 

I know people get awfully worried about their property prices and suchlike when rent controls are mentioned, but realistically, what is the alternative? Pay the rent of others forever just to sustain the unsustainable under conditions of austerity? There are better uses for that money than attempting to satisfy the banking system's avarice, and given the banking industry's cavalier attitude to the integrity of the system in the past, they should probably do their part in sorting out people who've been left in negative equity as a consequence of all the credit that was shat out into the market, enforced by government if need be.

 

As I keep telling people, it's all made up anyway.

[Whitey Grandad]

I totally disagree on the single tax rate.

 

One thing I can't see mentioned is the banding of it. So up to amount 'x' people pay 'y'%, as you earn more this increases over that threshold. So it is the same for everyone.

 

If you earn more, you do not pay the higher tax rate on all of your earnings, only on earnings over a certain level.

 

I do however, totally agree that taxpayers money is spent appallingly and there is simply far too much wastage. Too big a government, and too many vested interests. The NHS is a fantastic example, as I have rambled on about before (so won't do here again).

 

The whole point of the flat tax rate is that it is the only rate, nothing else, no tax-free thresholds or anything, somewhere around 20% is often mooted. A lot of other restructuring would need to take place too and I cannot see it ever being implemented in the UK but a surprising (to me at least) number of countries use it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

 

Yes, wastage, oh dear, far too much is frittered. The problem is that government-funded institutions think they can just go back to the bottomless well every time that they have a problem to solve.

[Whitey Grandad]

Its not really about tax rates - its about avoidance of paying tax, regardless of what the rate is. On a rough estimate of profits being 10% of turnover and Corporation tax being 26% of profits the three below should have paid £164m, instead they paid £6m between them.

 

 

Yes, universally acknowledged as a ridiculous situation but not enough on their own to make a lot of difference. These examples do, of course, employ people and pay all the associated personal and infrastructure taxes.

[buctootim]

not enough on their own to make a lot of difference. These examples do, of course, employ people and pay all the associated personal and infrastructure taxes.

 

It makes a huge difference because it means they can undercut their rivals who do pay tax, further incentivising them to do the same. I know a director at Whitbread (who own Costa coffee amongst other things). He believes in 'paying your fair whack' but is under pressure from fellow directors who cite starbucks as an example. I employ staff, think I'll avoid tax based on your justification.

Edited 3 October, 2014 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

It makes a huge difference because it means they can undercut their rivals who do pay tax, further incentivising them to do the same. I know a director at Whitbread (who own Costa coffee amongst other things). He believes in 'paying your fair whack' but is under pressure from fellow directors who cite starbucks as an example. I employ staff, think I'll avoid tax based on your justification.

 

I said I thought it was ridiculous, and in the case of Starbucks a downright fiddle. I think you'd have trouble structuring your business to match their model.

[OldNick]

Its not really about tax rates - its about avoidance of paying tax, regardless of what the rate is. On a rough estimate of profits being 10% of turnover and Corporation tax being 26% of profits the three below should have paid £164m, instead they paid £6m between them.

 

i think you will find the majority of taxpayers will find this deplorable. Why the politicians or tax authorities have not done anything about this is what should be questioned.

[OldNick]

Yes, universally acknowledged as a ridiculous situation but not enough on their own to make a lot of difference. These examples do, of course, employ people and pay all the associated personal and infrastructure taxes.

but they are takingaway profits from the people who do play the game. I suspect most of the jobs would be made up by those companies as they would expand

[Lord Duckhunter]

Its not really about tax rates - its about avoidance of paying tax, regardless of what the rate is. On a rough estimate of profits being 10% of turnover and Corporation tax being 26% of profits the three below should have paid £164m, instead they paid £6m between them.

 

 

What role does the EU play in this. Surely being in the single market means companies can minimise their tax liabilities .