I'm not personally advocating the use of "distributing" wealth willy-nilly and I understand that without some sort of disparity between the rich and the poor, there would be little to no incentive to work hard. What I am in favour of is our government claiming the tens of billions of tax money it is owed by big corporations to flow into new hospitals, schools and housing - the new infrastructure that is needed to deal with our growing population.
Philip Green (the owner of Topshop and various other businesses on most UK high streets) recently gave himself a £1.2b bonus but paid absolutely no tax on said bonus because he argued that his companies were in fact owned by his wife based in Monaco. Now how is that in any way fair? Philip Green is not doing anything illegal and that's where the problem lies. The system needs changing so it benefits everyone equally.
unfortunately these loopholes are created by the EU, whether you disagree entirely with ukip or not, elements of the EU need reform at the very least.
"Finally, for all those slagging off the purple haired lady, yes I agree she was a bit of a loon but interesting that the lady that talked about Canterbury prison being full of immigrants. This is completely 100% untrue. How do I know this? Canterbury prison closed last year. This is the sort of scare mongering and flat out lies that are told that frightens me, not some loon shouting out at politicians. I wonder how many people heard that woman and thought "that's shocking, just another reason we need to stop immigration"?"
Thought I'd repeat that, because it is seriously worrying. Nobody challenged her. She was probably primed to say that. I dare say, possibly remunerated for her effort.
If we are into these kinds of cheap dirty tricks the BBC is going to have to think hard about how they manage Question Time. Will need a producer checking facts and whispering in Dimbleby's earpiece.
I'm just worried how far this can go. When people realise immigrants weren't the issue after our government has driven them out, which section of society will be targeted next?
I'm just worried how far this can go. When people realise immigrants weren't the issue after our government has driven them out, which section of society will be targeted next?
The immigrants aren't the problem as nobody can blame anyone for wanting to better their life. The problem is the system. The people are a byproduct of a failed system.
The sooner people realise that this country wouldn't collapse if immigration was managed properly, the sooner we can all get on with sorting out the great big shitpile of issues we face as a country.
I'm just worried how far this can go. When people realise immigrants weren't the issue after our government has driven them out, which section of society will be targeted next?
when people realise big businesses and the super rich aren't the issue after they've been driven out, what section of society will be targeted next?
I agree with your skepticism but you need to hold both sides of the argument accountable with the same degree of skepticism.
Thought I'd repeat that, because it is seriously worrying. Nobody challenged her.
Just like nobody challenges the 'racist' tag that is regularly chucked about on BBC Question Time whenever someone voices concerns over immigration.
It works both ways.
Depressing indeed.
Not quite "just like". "Racist" is an assertion, one person's personal view of another. This was somebody stating as a verifiable fact, a bare-faced lie (apparently), to support a particular political case.
I'm just worried how far this can go. When people realise immigrants weren't the issue after our government has driven them out, which section of society will be targeted next?
when people realise big businesses and the super rich aren't the issue after they've been driven out, what section of society will be targeted next?
I agree with your skepticism but you need to hold both sides of the argument accountable with the same degree of skepticism.
One group are just like you & I, often doing menial labour to make ends meet for them and their family. The other are avoiding billions of pounds worth of tax. I wonder which are the problem.
Thought I'd repeat that, because it is seriously worrying. Nobody challenged her.
Just like nobody challenges the 'racist' tag that is regularly chucked about on BBC Question Time whenever someone voices concerns over immigration.
It works both ways.
Depressing indeed.
One is a personal attack based on opinion that many will not believe, the other is a completely false representation of a real situation. How many would actually go and check that fact? The only reason I know about that is because I saw some retweeting a local paper's tweet on the matter. Many will take it as fact and use it as justification for voting UKIP. I'm not defending personal attacks on someone's character, but for me the scare mongering from false facts is more disturbing.
I'm just worried how far this can go. When people realise immigrants weren't the issue after our government has driven them out, which section of society will be targeted next?
when people realise big businesses and the super rich aren't the issue after they've been driven out, what section of society will be targeted next?
I agree with your skepticism but you need to hold both sides of the argument accountable with the same degree of skepticism.
One group are just like you & I, often doing menial labour to make ends meet for them and their family. The other are avoiding billions of pounds worth of tax. I wonder which are the problem.
both are the problem.
We cannot maintain the level of immigration we've sustained over the past decade and people/businesses should pay the tax they owe. Making a boogeyman out of either of them is dangerous.
I like Brand, his heart's in the right place and he's stuck his head above the paraphet despite a pretty sinister media campaign. He makes some decent points but suffers from the same problem as Farage in that he only ever looks at half the equation. They are both right to a degree.
Mass imigration is hugely beneficial to those who wish to exploit others for personal gain, whether that be the Buy to Let landlords who are hoovering up the limited supply of housing and then charging astronomical rents or the executives who are squeezing the wages of their poorest workers (who then need to be subsidised with tax credits from the state) while giving themselves massive pay rises.
It's also quite handy for any incumbent chancellor to be able to point to the inevitable GDP increase caused by imigration as evidence of their genius economic management of the country despite the fact GDP per capita is unchanged.
Likewise, too many of the global elite of companies and individuals are refusing to put into the system and instead hoard their wealth in tax havens. I hate the simplistic 'Eat the rich' student politics of some of the left but there is no doubt that capitalism does need reining in to be a sustainable system. There needs to be a fine balance between rewarding innovation and entrepreneurial spirit and protecting the ordinary 'grafter' from exploitation.
Last I heard Australia was booming - their economy is in great shape.
I thought Brand came across very well last night - better than I expected him to. He had some weak moments, but then he's not a professional politician. I can see him changing his mind and standing - I wonder if one of the mainstream parties (Lab or Lib) will make him an offer?
I like Brand, his heart's in the right place and he's stuck his head above the paraphet despite a pretty sinister media campaign. He makes some decent points but suffers from the same problem as Farage in that he only ever looks at half the equation. They are both right to a degree.
Mass imigration is hugely beneficial to those who wish to exploit others for personal gain, whether that be the Buy to Let landlords who are hoovering up the limited supply of housing and then charging astronomical rents or the executives who are squeezing the wages of their poorest workers (who then need to be subsidised with tax credits from the state) while giving themselves massive pay rises.
It's also quite handy for any incumbent chancellor to be able to point to the inevitable GDP increase caused by imigration as evidence of their genius economic management of the country despite the fact GDP per capita is unchanged.
Likewise, too many of the global elite of companies and individuals are refusing to put into the system and instead hoard their wealth in tax havens. I hate the simplistic 'Eat the rich' student politics of some of the left but there is no doubt that capitalism does need reining in to be a sustainable system. There needs to be a fine balance between rewarding innovation and entrepreneurial spirit and protecting the ordinary 'grafter' from exploitation.
although i don't care for brand your post is spot on.
Interesting balanced article. What is hinted is that we have created the system that encourages corporations and individuals to choose not to pay tax. What is left unsaid is that this has been driven through the pursuit of fairness policies and some sort of belief that people will pay voluntary taxes. There is always a cost and inconvenience to avoiding a voluntary tax, an intelligent strategy would be to develop a low tax regime that took more taxes because the additional tax is less than the cost of avoiding payment.
It's been proved time and again that tax revenues increase when rates are lowered, that punitive tax rates are worth the cost of avoiding and cost more to chase than they raise. HMRC tax collectors get bonuses based on tax recovered, they don't chase billionaires because most billionaires don't have to evade, they can afford the cost of legally avoiding tax. Small businesses often don't have profits because all they do is provide an income that they pay tax on.
Why create taxes that you can't effectively collect? Why rail against banker's bonuses that attract income tax when the alternative outlet is lower taxed or avoided corporate tax or dividends? The reason is that too many people are more interested in reacting to the base instinct of envy and anti-capitalism than satisfying the need to raise more tax revenue, as typified by Russell Brand.
Thought I'd repeat that, because it is seriously worrying. Nobody challenged her.
Just like nobody challenges the 'racist' tag that is regularly chucked about on BBC Question Time whenever someone voices concerns over immigration.
It works both ways.
Depressing indeed.
Not quite "just like". "Racist" is an assertion, one person's personal view of another. This was somebody stating as a verifiable fact, a bare-faced lie (apparently), to support a particular political case.
The term 'racist' has been allowed to move on from being an assertion or personal viewpoint. It is now used as a political tool by both politicians and the media alike to stifle debate over something that they all profiteer from and want to avoid debating.
How the Canterbury Prison balls up got past all the panel just highlights how little they know.
Brand's good at pointing out problems but useless with coming up with any kind of answer, viable or otherwise, to the problems he has concerns about. Which basically makes him no different to the man on the street, except he's done the naughty with a couple of B-list celebs and he's written a book, which is apparently enough to elevate him to being the voice of a generation.
Interesting balanced article. What is hinted is that we have created the system that encourages corporations and individuals to choose not to pay tax. What is left unsaid is that this has been driven through the pursuit of fairness policies and some sort of belief that people will pay voluntary taxes. There is always a cost and inconvenience to avoiding a voluntary tax, an intelligent strategy would be to develop a low tax regime that took more taxes because the additional tax is less than the cost of avoiding payment.
It's been proved time and again that tax revenues increase when rates are lowered, that punitive tax rates are worth the cost of avoiding and cost more to chase than they raise. HMRC tax collectors get bonuses based on tax recovered, they don't chase billionaires because most billionaires don't have to evade, they can afford the cost of legally avoiding tax. Small businesses often don't have profits because all they do is provide an income that they pay tax on.
Why create taxes that you can't effectively collect? Why rail against banker's bonuses that attract income tax when the alternative outlet is lower taxed or avoided corporate tax or dividends? The reason is that too many people are more interested in reacting to the base instinct of envy and anti-capitalism than satisfying the need to raise more tax revenue, as typified by Russell Brand.
Fair points Dip. I think the majority of us would agree that if we could pay less tax then we would, very little argument about that and on personal income I can see why the rich do what they do. I think most of us have a problem with multinationals not paying tax (or extremely little tax). That is the area that does need addressing. Unfortunately given the City's exemption from any sort of legislation it is just very unlikely to happen.
Brand has plenty of answers and suggestions on how things can be done differently if you want to look into it.
but they're nothing new. His views are just a collection of different political thinkers viewpoints that have either not been tried because they're far too risky or have tried and failed or been damn right barmy. I think you'll struggle to find an original answer from brand.
Brand has plenty of answers and suggestions on how things can be done differently if you want to look into it.
but they're nothing new. His views are just a collection of different political thinkers viewpoints that have either not been tried because they're far too risky or have tried and failed or been damn right barmy. I think you'll struggle to find an original answer from brand.
Go look into Iceland's peaceful revolution with has taken place over the last five years but has been criminally under reported by the mainstream media here.
I don't massively like russel brand as a person but he did speak well when called upon. The ideas Farage puts forward are not a solution to any problem. Load of drivel.
Interesting balanced article. What is hinted is that we have created the system that encourages corporations and individuals to choose not to pay tax. What is left unsaid is that this has been driven through the pursuit of fairness policies and some sort of belief that people will pay voluntary taxes. There is always a cost and inconvenience to avoiding a voluntary tax, an intelligent strategy would be to develop a low tax regime that took more taxes because the additional tax is less than the cost of avoiding payment.
It's been proved time and again that tax revenues increase when rates are lowered, that punitive tax rates are worth the cost of avoiding and cost more to chase than they raise. HMRC tax collectors get bonuses based on tax recovered, they don't chase billionaires because most billionaires don't have to evade, they can afford the cost of legally avoiding tax. Small businesses often don't have profits because all they do is provide an income that they pay tax on.
Why create taxes that you can't effectively collect? Why rail against banker's bonuses that attract income tax when the alternative outlet is lower taxed or avoided corporate tax or dividends? The reason is that too many people are more interested in reacting to the base instinct of envy and anti-capitalism than satisfying the need to raise more tax revenue, as typified by Russell Brand.
Has it been proved? I thought it was very much a case of not proven either way.
I'm extremely suspicious of the argument that people are more likely to pay taxes if they are "reasonable". What's "reasonable" to someone like Philip Green? 30%? 10%? A one off donation to his idea of a good cause?
There is a case for lower tax rates in the former Communist countries like this one, where people still regard The State as their oppressive enemy. There's an old Czech saying "If you don't steal from the State, you are stealing from your family". But for an advanced democratic society where people understand the need for taxes, it doesn't wash. If it had any merit, than how do you explain the relative economic - and social - success of modern Germany, and the companies it has spawned when compared to the UK?
Your remark about tax inspectors and bonuses was interesting. Are you suggesting they get paid bonuses for detecting evasion, which presumably went to court, but not for challenging cases of avoidance? If that's the case, well there is a huge problem, right there. As I'm sure you know, avoidance schemes are a grey area, and have often been challenged. THAT is where the Revenue and the Governments need to seriously up their game. If they don't, people will increasingly feel that it is all a stitch up - and turn to populists or extremists.
Brand has plenty of answers and suggestions on how things can be done differently if you want to look into it.
but they're nothing new. His views are just a collection of different political thinkers viewpoints that have either not been tried because they're far too risky or have tried and failed or been damn right barmy. I think you'll struggle to find an original answer from brand.
Go look into Iceland's peaceful revolution with has taken place over the last five years but has been criminally under reported by the mainstream media here.
imprisoning professionals in a global industry that the UK is pretty much built around could be deemed as too risky. Also, iceland has a population of 323,002.. I'm pretty certain more people work in the banking sector than live in iceland. That's not to say it's not very admirable what they've done and what a great country iceland is generally, but it would be deemed by many as "too risky".
Your remark about tax inspectors and bonuses was interesting. Are you suggesting they get paid bonuses for detecting evasion, which presumably went to court, but not for challenging cases of avoidance? If that's the case, well there is a huge problem, right there. As I'm sure you know, avoidance schemes are a grey area, and have often been challenged. THAT is where the Revenue and the Governments need to seriously up their game. If they don't, people will increasingly feel that it is all a stitch up - and turn to populists or extremists
Very few tax cases go to court. Once HMRC have identified an occurrence of a tax underpayment, in error or deliberately, you are invited to sign an admission, which avoids a Court case where HMRC have to prove intent. Only if you contest will HMRC take you to Court where they frequently have insufficient evidence of intent, so a negotiated settlement is cheaper for HMRC than a contested Court case. The bonus reflects the ability of the inspector to negotiate a settlement for the highest amount. If they think a football manager is taking the piss then they will probably go to Court.
We have contested a VAT liability with HMRC under their failure to adopt an EU directive which claim was routinely dismissed, as is any contested tax claim. In fact the law has been clarified and HMRC will be refunding VAT we were wrongly forced to pay. Not a case of them upping their game, just acting in accordance with EU directives. If we were not in the EU we would not be the beneficiaries of this windfall, the EU is a wonderful organisation :-)
The only person that has been on Question Time more than Nigel Farage since 2009 is David Dimbleby. That seems like fair representation from a state broadcaster to me......
The reason for that is that you have 3 main parties with scarce a fag paper of difference between them who have far more people to choose from to represent them.
UKIP is a young, growing party with fewer high profile figures yet it has still managed become the dominant UK Party in the European Parliament and hence worthy of representation on programmes like Question Time.
Farage will therefore inevitably appear more as there are less qualified people to choose from in UKIP than the other parties as I said.
Your remark about tax inspectors and bonuses was interesting. Are you suggesting they get paid bonuses for detecting evasion, which presumably went to court, but not for challenging cases of avoidance? If that's the case, well there is a huge problem, right there. As I'm sure you know, avoidance schemes are a grey area, and have often been challenged. THAT is where the Revenue and the Governments need to seriously up their game. If they don't, people will increasingly feel that it is all a stitch up - and turn to populists or extremists
Very few tax cases go to court. Once HMRC have identified an occurrence of a tax underpayment, in error or deliberately, you are invited to sign an admission, which avoids a Court case where HMRC have to prove intent. Only if you contest will HMRC take you to Court where they frequently have insufficient evidence of intent, so a negotiated settlement is cheaper for HMRC than a contested Court case. The bonus reflects the ability of the inspector to negotiate a settlement for the highest amount. If they think a football manager is taking the piss then they will probably go to Court.
We have contested a VAT liability with HMRC under their failure to adopt an EU directive which claim was routinely dismissed, as is any contested tax claim. In fact the law has been clarified and HMRC will be refunding VAT we were wrongly forced to pay. Not a case of them upping their game, just acting in accordance with EU directives. If we were not in the EU we would not be the beneficiaries of this windfall, the EU is a wonderful organisation :-)
If we were not in the EU you wouldn't be paying VAT.
The only person that has been on Question Time more than Nigel Farage since 2009 is David Dimbleby. That seems like fair representation from a state broadcaster to me......
The reason for that is that you have 3 main parties with scarce a fag paper of difference between them who have far more people to choose from to represent them.
UKIP is a young, growing party with fewer high profile figures yet it has still managed become the dominant UK Party in the European Parliament and hence worthy of representation on programmes like Question Time.
Farage will therefore inevitably appear more as there are less qualified people to choose from in UKIP than the other parties as I said.
Comments
"Finally, for all those slagging off the purple haired lady, yes I agree she was a bit of a loon but interesting that the lady that talked about Canterbury prison being full of immigrants. This is completely 100% untrue. How do I know this? Canterbury prison closed last year. This is the sort of scare mongering and flat out lies that are told that frightens me, not some loon shouting out at politicians. I wonder how many people heard that woman and thought "that's shocking, just another reason we need to stop immigration"?"
Thought I'd repeat that, because it is seriously worrying. Nobody challenged her. She was probably primed to say that. I dare say, possibly remunerated for her effort.
If we are into these kinds of cheap dirty tricks the BBC is going to have to think hard about how they manage Question Time. Will need a producer checking facts and whispering in Dimbleby's earpiece.
Depressing.
The sooner people realise that this country wouldn't collapse if immigration was managed properly, the sooner we can all get on with sorting out the great big shitpile of issues we face as a country.
It works both ways.
Depressing indeed.
I agree with your skepticism but you need to hold both sides of the argument accountable with the same degree of skepticism.
We cannot maintain the level of immigration we've sustained over the past decade and people/businesses should pay the tax they owe. Making a boogeyman out of either of them is dangerous.
Mass imigration is hugely beneficial to those who wish to exploit others for personal gain, whether that be the Buy to Let landlords who are hoovering up the limited supply of housing and then charging astronomical rents or the executives who are squeezing the wages of their poorest workers (who then need to be subsidised with tax credits from the state) while giving themselves massive pay rises.
It's also quite handy for any incumbent chancellor to be able to point to the inevitable GDP increase caused by imigration as evidence of their genius economic management of the country despite the fact GDP per capita is unchanged.
Likewise, too many of the global elite of companies and individuals are refusing to put into the system and instead hoard their wealth in tax havens. I hate the simplistic 'Eat the rich' student politics of some of the left but there is no doubt that capitalism does need reining in to be a sustainable system. There needs to be a fine balance between rewarding innovation and entrepreneurial spirit and protecting the ordinary 'grafter' from exploitation.
I thought Brand came across very well last night - better than I expected him to. He had some weak moments, but then he's not a professional politician. I can see him changing his mind and standing - I wonder if one of the mainstream parties (Lab or Lib) will make him an offer?
It's been proved time and again that tax revenues increase when rates are lowered, that punitive tax rates are worth the cost of avoiding and cost more to chase than they raise. HMRC tax collectors get bonuses based on tax recovered, they don't chase billionaires because most billionaires don't have to evade, they can afford the cost of legally avoiding tax. Small businesses often don't have profits because all they do is provide an income that they pay tax on.
Why create taxes that you can't effectively collect? Why rail against banker's bonuses that attract income tax when the alternative outlet is lower taxed or avoided corporate tax or dividends? The reason is that too many people are more interested in reacting to the base instinct of envy and anti-capitalism than satisfying the need to raise more tax revenue, as typified by Russell Brand.
How the Canterbury Prison balls up got past all the panel just highlights how little they know.
I'm extremely suspicious of the argument that people are more likely to pay taxes if they are "reasonable". What's "reasonable" to someone like Philip Green? 30%? 10%? A one off donation to his idea of a good cause?
There is a case for lower tax rates in the former Communist countries like this one, where people still regard The State as their oppressive enemy. There's an old Czech saying "If you don't steal from the State, you are stealing from your family". But for an advanced democratic society where people understand the need for taxes, it doesn't wash. If it had any merit, than how do you explain the relative economic - and social - success of modern Germany, and the companies it has spawned when compared to the UK?
Your remark about tax inspectors and bonuses was interesting. Are you suggesting they get paid bonuses for detecting evasion, which presumably went to court, but not for challenging cases of avoidance? If that's the case, well there is a huge problem, right there. As I'm sure you know, avoidance schemes are a grey area, and have often been challenged. THAT is where the Revenue and the Governments need to seriously up their game. If they don't, people will increasingly feel that it is all a stitch up - and turn to populists or extremists.
Very few tax cases go to court. Once HMRC have identified an occurrence of a tax underpayment, in error or deliberately, you are invited to sign an admission, which avoids a Court case where HMRC have to prove intent. Only if you contest will HMRC take you to Court where they frequently have insufficient evidence of intent, so a negotiated settlement is cheaper for HMRC than a contested Court case. The bonus reflects the ability of the inspector to negotiate a settlement for the highest amount. If they think a football manager is taking the piss then they will probably go to Court.
We have contested a VAT liability with HMRC under their failure to adopt an EU directive which claim was routinely dismissed, as is any contested tax claim. In fact the law has been clarified and HMRC will be refunding VAT we were wrongly forced to pay. Not a case of them upping their game, just acting in accordance with EU directives. If we were not in the EU we would not be the beneficiaries of this windfall, the EU is a wonderful organisation :-)
UKIP is a young, growing party with fewer high profile figures yet it has still managed become the dominant UK Party in the European Parliament and hence worthy of representation on programmes like Question Time.
Farage will therefore inevitably appear more as there are less qualified people to choose from in UKIP than the other parties as I said.
It is an EU tax.