advertisement


Are you optimistic about the UK's future?

Conservatives were at the door again today.
The only party that ever bothers to come round.
I'm not sure if it's because other party candidates are useless or they're just afraid of leafy suburbs.
 
Conservatives were at the door again today.
The only party that ever bothers to come round.
I'm not sure if it's because other party candidates are useless or they're just afraid of leafy suburbs.
No, it’s a question of resources.

After decades of receiving money from criminals, non dom tax dodgers and Russian oligarchs, the Tories are so awash with filthy lucre and ill-gotten gains, they need to throw money at door knockers for tax purposes
 
I was tempted to come in on this which is very rare for me now a days. Margaret Thatcher was a strong advocate of what you have just suggested. She believed that assets and income should be lowly taxed, if at all, in order to encourage hard work and thrift. She loved applying tax to expenditure and if my memory serves me correct, she forced Geoffrey Howe to increase VAT from 8% to 15% to discourage expenditure whilst the the standard rate of income tax went from 33p in the Pound down to 30p. Applying VAT on everything without exception, albeit at a lower rate would tie in completely with Thatchers policy.

So tax would be raised from those who spent money and not on those who earned it.

You really should pop into your local Conservative Club, you would fit right in.
Ah yes, good old VAT. It taxes the poor at a higher overall rate than the rich (don't take my word for it, ask the ONS) so no wonder That Bloody Woman loved it.
 
After decades of receiving money from criminals, non dom tax dodgers and Russian oligarchs, the Tories are so awash with filthy lucre and ill-gotten gains, they need to throw money at door knockers for tax purposes

I'll have to ask about that next time they come around.

They did look quite innocent.

Appearances can be deceptive though.
 
Not long ago we were told that spending £4bn on giving nurses a cost of living wage rise was “unaffordable” and would cause inflation. A theme picked up in frightening headlines, serious TV interviews and by some on pfm

Today we are told that an extra £6bn to stop a few boat people is on the cards. No question of affordability no thought about inflation.

It is difficult to be optimistic for a country where spending on public services is met with howls of opposition, but even higher spending on xenophobia is met with silent resignation.
 
Last edited:
Out in Tower Hamlets yesterday. Everyone seemed very chipper - shops, cafes, pubs, and restaurants full of all types having a good time and spending, spending, spending. Loads on bikes and running. Many out with their dogs. Even the graffiti was popping. It's not all doom and gloom on the ground.
 
I was tempted to come in on this which is very rare for me now a days. Margaret Thatcher was a strong advocate of what you have just suggested. She believed that assets and income should be lowly taxed, if at all, in order to encourage hard work and thrift. She loved applying tax to expenditure and if my memory serves me correct, she forced Geoffrey Howe to increase VAT from 8% to 15% to discourage expenditure whilst the the standard rate of income tax went from 33p in the Pound down to 30p. Applying VAT on everything without exception, albeit at a lower rate would tie in completely with Thatchers policy.

So tax would be raised from those who spent money and not on those who earned it.

You really should pop into your local Conservative Club, you would fit right in.
No, not really. The marginal transaction tax I had in mind would be on the order of a fraction of one percent, but would apply to every transaction (in theory). This would mean that the likes of Amazon, Meta and all the offshored entities would have a small fraction of every transaction shaved off, as would people doing regular, everyday business. So every time you shift your share portfolio around, or move money between your ISAs and your current account, or withdraw some pension, the state would take a tiny cut. Just as it would when you buy your G&T down the Con club, or renew your subscription to Smug Tory Monthly. It's not about fiddling with the rates of VAT. If you hold with the principle of taxation at all, then it would seem logical and reasonable to tax everything, rather than create loopholes and escape routes by being selective as to what is taxed. And in doing so, the rate at which you tax, can come right down.
 
Out in Tower Hamlets yesterday. Everyone seemed very chipper - shops, cafes, pubs, and restaurants full of all types having a good time and spending, spending, spending. Loads on bikes and running. Many out with their dogs. Even the graffiti was popping. It's not all doom and gloom on the ground.
Tory Britain, the best of all possible worlds.

(For Tories)
 
No, not really. The marginal transaction tax I had in mind would be on the order of a fraction of one percent, but would apply to every transaction (in theory). This would mean that the likes of Amazon, Meta and all the offshored entities would have a small fraction of every transaction shaved off, as would people doing regular, everyday business. So every time you shift your share portfolio around, or move money between your ISAs and your current account, or withdraw some pension, the state would take a tiny cut. Just as it would when you buy your G&T down the Con club, or renew your subscription to Smug Tory Monthly. It's not about fiddling with the rates of VAT. If you hold with the principle of taxation at all, then it would seem logical and reasonable to tax everything, rather than create loopholes and escape routes by being selective as to what is taxed. And in doing so, the rate at which you tax, can come right down.

Yes I believe the purchase of any goods and/or services should be taxed. You spend the money, you pay the tax, simple as that. There is no need for any loopholes.

The only disadvantage is that it would encourage the cash in hand type of transactions. However do we really need cash in this day and age. I put £200 in my wallet in January 2021 and I still have over £80 left. Card is king and keeps everything trackable.
 
However do we really need cash in this day and age. I put £200 in my wallet in January 2021 and I still have over £80 left. Card is king and keeps everything trackable.

Likewise. Safer for the retailer too, what`s not in the till can`t be stolen.
 
Likewise. Safer for the retailer too, what`s not in the till can`t be stolen.
It is. I go to a local climbing wall, they have recently done a large refurb and part of the change is card only. They said exactly this, and also that they get charged to deposit the day's takings in cash, quite apart from the hazards of travelling across a city with a few thousand pounds in a bag every day.
 
Likewise. Safer for the retailer too, what`s not in the till can`t be stolen.

Also a pain now we're losing banks; still got a couple of tenants who pay in cash.

The post offices don't have the counting machinery and going to the bank is a morning's work plus a car park and bank charges.
 
Likewise. Safer for the retailer too, what`s not in the till can`t be stolen.

Except card merchants can claw back from the retailer if they suspect a fraudulent card has been used after the event, even if the bank approve the transaction at the point of sale. Just ask some of the hifi retailers on here. The bank always wins.
 
Yes I believe the purchase of any goods and/or services should be taxed. You spend the money, you pay the tax, simple as that. There is no need for any loopholes.

The only disadvantage is that it would encourage the cash in hand type of transactions. However do we really need cash in this day and age. I put £200 in my wallet in January 2021 and I still have over £80 left. Card is king and keeps everything trackable.
I imagine it might trigger a small resurgence in the cash economy, but mainly among the poorest and lowest-earning parts of society. If anybody needs the breaks, it's them and not the richest, so (to quote a certain Mr Mandelson) I'm intensely relaxed about that risk.
 
Yes I believe the purchase of any goods and/or services should be taxed. You spend the money, you pay the tax, simple as that. There is no need for any loopholes.

Ideally, yes. The snag is that we also use VAT distinctions to allow for things like zero/low rate on, e.g. food, because that then helps the poor. Of course, it would make more sense to give the poor some more money or help them to be able to earn it if they can, or just pay them a decent level of benefit if they can't. But that runs us into the Toryland anxiety about the "undeserving" poor. Odd that they don't also worry about an "undeserving" rich, innit! 8-] Despite most of the wealthy getting it via sources classed as "unearned"...

The big distinction in the UK is the way the labels 'earned' and 'unearned' income are deployed and used. Hence are used for tax dodging on an epic scale. The Tories love this trick and use it all the time to please their chumocracy. Chumocracy bankrolls the Tories <-> Tories run tax with the distinctions needed to let their wealthy chums dodge tax.

The irony is that 'unearned' income is favoured as a way to dodge tax. Odd term, 'unearned' somehow implying it isn't really 'income' but still somehow 'deserved'! Strange use of language as a cover story...

The most recent campaign by the Tory headbangers is to end the tax on inheritance. The idea being that it is 'unfair'. Again, rather odd given that:

1) The persons who 'inherit' may not have done anything to 'earn' the wealth, just lucky with who their parents happened to be.

2) Most people in the UK simply don't own enough to have to pay this tax. It is a tax that only affects the most wealthy 'estates'. So is about our only tax on high wealth.

As Paul Johnson IFS has pointed out, it would make more sense to tax this in terms of being income for those who *benefit*. Not apply it to the 'estate' as a whole. Thus if it were divided and spread out to pay something to more beneficiaries more people would get some wealth. Then considered as part of their 'income' for that year. So those with low incomes from other sources would only pay at a low tax rate, while any who had high incomes anyway would pay a higher rate. i.e. fairer all round, and a more logical tax system. i.e. a reduction in the magic trick of 'unearned' wand waving.
 
Considering the UK as a whole, I found this snippet from the FT interesting:

One of the most important subplots in the Brexit negotiations was, of course, the position of Northern Ireland inside the union. New polling from YouGov points to a core problem for unionism: polls of people in Great Britain show they simply do not think of Northern Ireland in the same way as they think of Scotland and Wales.

They would, in fact, be a touch keener to keep the Falkland Islands than Northern Ireland.


To me, British abandonment of the ungrateful money sink called Northern Ireland is inevitable, and the sooner Norn Iron Unionists wise up to this fundamental fact of live and cease emulating ostriches, the better.
 
Of course, but many retailers get shafted by this, which is why some prefer bank transfer / cash. The bid to ban cash is utopia for the govt / banks.

It is also a concern given how easily it seems many of our major 'finance' organisations, etc, get hacked. I recently got a letter from my pension firm saying they'd kept their info with Crapita who have been hacked and personal details may have been stolen. Quite probably by crooks overseas outwith UK law.
 


advertisement


Back
Top