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.
It is an EU tax.
Not sure VAT is "an EU tax" - If we left the EU we wouldn't suddenly stop having to pay VAT. It might be called something different but I betcha it would amount to the same thing.
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 the difference between evasion (illegal) and avoidance (legal) is as black and white as you suggest, then how come you get a situation where Vodafone claim they should pay £0, HMRC say they should pay £8,000,000,000, and then Vodafone and HMRC "settle" on £1,800,000,000? The implication is that HMRC are so incompetent that they over-calculated Vodafone's tax bill by 5 times. Sorry, I think they are incompetent, but not in the way that they don't know how to calculate tax according to their own rules. They settled because they haven't got the legal or professional clout to match the army of external smartasses that Vodafone (and Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc) can assemble. So they settle for a fraction of what Vodafone owe. Do you think Hartnett got a bonus for that, BTW? That is no way to run a country's tax regime, and I repeat, this, as much as immigration, is what is driving the cynicism and disaffection. If you want to see a populist left wing government come to power then keep on allowing VF and co to get away with this nonsense on the ground that "it's all legal"
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.
Well you could argue that it's those that couldn't be bothered to try at school and failed to get qualified to do a job that paid more but went ahead and had a family they couldn't afford regardless. And not those who run mega businesses employing huge numbers of people....
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.
It is an EU tax.
Not sure VAT is "an EU tax" - If we left the EU we wouldn't suddenly stop having to pay VAT. It might be called something different but I betcha it would amount to the same thing.
VAT is an EU tax and the tax the poster referred to hence my comment.
You are however almost certainly correct that there would be some kind of "transactions" tax if we were ever to leave the EU but our own elected representatives would make the rules rather than an unelected Commission in Brussels.
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.
It is an EU tax.
Not sure VAT is "an EU tax" - If we left the EU we wouldn't suddenly stop having to pay VAT. It might be called something different but I betcha it would amount to the same thing.
It isn't an "EU tax". Virtually all the big former Commonwealth countries have it for example. It is compulsory for countries who join the EU, because the EU is a single market, and if one country didn't have it all their neighbours' citizens would be piling across the border to buy everything. Len's just Kippered the facts...
Chances of UK VAT being abolished if we leave the EU? Zero
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.
It is an EU tax.
Not sure VAT is "an EU tax" - If we left the EU we wouldn't suddenly stop having to pay VAT. It might be called something different but I betcha it would amount to the same thing.
It isn't an "EU tax". Virtually all the big former Commonwealth countries have it for example. It is compulsory for countries who join the EU, because the EU is a single market, and if one country didn't have it all their neighbours' citizens would be piling across the border to buy everything. Len's just Kippered the facts...
Chances of UK VAT being abolished if we leave the EU? Zero
It is an EU tax and whilst there is some discretion for individual countries to set their own rates the EU defines minimum parameters which are compulsory.
I have said above that we would almost certainly have a "transactions" tax outside of the EU but the fundamental difference would be that our elected representatatives would set the rules rather than an unelected Commission in Brussels.
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.
It is an EU tax.
Not sure VAT is "an EU tax" - If we left the EU we wouldn't suddenly stop having to pay VAT. It might be called something different but I betcha it would amount to the same thing.
It isn't an "EU tax". Virtually all the big former Commonwealth countries have it for example. It is compulsory for countries who join the EU, because the EU is a single market, and if one country didn't have it all their neighbours' citizens would be piling across the border to buy everything. Len's just Kippered the facts...
Chances of UK VAT being abolished if we leave the EU? Zero
Thanks Prague, thinking about it, I recall accounting for VAT for a company operating in South Korea...
My memory isn't what it was, but I don't remember them being in the EU.
There used to be purchase tax, or sales tax on stuff bought before VAT came in. It was a bit of streamlining of sorts inspired by the EEC at the time, but there has always been taxes on goods, VAT is just the current name for it.
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.
It is an EU tax.
Not sure VAT is "an EU tax" - If we left the EU we wouldn't suddenly stop having to pay VAT. It might be called something different but I betcha it would amount to the same thing.
It isn't an "EU tax". Virtually all the big former Commonwealth countries have it for example. It is compulsory for countries who join the EU, because the EU is a single market, and if one country didn't have it all their neighbours' citizens would be piling across the border to buy everything. Len's just Kippered the facts...
Chances of UK VAT being abolished if we leave the EU? Zero
Thanks Prague, thinking about it, I recall accounting for VAT for a company operating in South Korea...
My memory isn't what it was, but I don't remember them being in the EU.
The Company may have operated in South Korea but probably was based in and also traded with countries within the EU so no great surprise really.
VAT is an EU tax.
Other countries have transactions taxes which is what VAT effectively is but VAT is an EU tax and the rules are made by the EU.
I've supplied the link there is little more I can do....
I think what is equally scandalous as these big corporations being, effectively, able to choose how much tax they pay is on top of that the government then allows them to pay inadequate wages to large numbers of people, often on unpredictable zero hours contracts, which the tax payer then has to top up to try and give these people a survivable income.
Effectively the UK taxpayer helps these large companies pay for their staff, the staff without which they could not generate such big profits, and then lets the coorporation keep most or all the rewards.
This is one of the major ways the UK is haemorrhaging money. Give money to the rich and they will lock it away in tax efficient savings, often abroad, or in capital investments that primarily benefit the individual.
Give more money to the poor and they will spend it, largely on trying to improve their and their children's prospects and quality of life, and the money stays liquid within the economy benefitting many.
Oh come on Len, haven't you heard of a website called Wikipedia?
Please don't let this become your "Canterbury Prison" moment :-)
I suggest people actually read what I've written on this thread.
I've repeatedly acknowledged the existence of transaction taxes outside of the EU and acknowledged that if we left the EU we would almost certainly introduce some sort of transactions tax in place of VAT.
None of that alters the fact that VAT is an EU tax however. Here is the link again:
Before VAT came in in 1973 we had purchase tax. The purchase tax was not put on everything, but often on luxuries, and Budget reports were full of 'a penny on a pint' type stories as chancellors tinkered with the prices of this thing or another. The average of Purchase Tax at the end of 1972 was 25%, and VAT was first introduced at a rate of 10%. VAT was introduced to more stuff, and to services as well, but stuff like food was exempt, just as Purchase Tax was able to exempt stuff previously (even now some Charity music is exempted from the VAT). So the indigenous Purchase tax was clunky, and had a higher average, and the Chancellor of the day could switch things about to curry favour with the electorate, or to advantage business mates. The 'European' VAT was less open to abuse, more streamlined, easier to understand and set at a lower figure than the average of the home grown Purchase Tax. It is mistaken to imply that VAT came marching into Britain to give us a kicking. It is the rate of VAT that is the real issue, not it's nationality!
Before VAT came in in 1973 we had purchase tax. The purchase tax was not put on everything, but often on luxuries, and Budget reports were full of 'a penny on a pint' type stories as chancellors tinkered with the prices of this thing or another. The average of Purchase Tax at the end of 1972 was 25%, and VAT was first introduced at a rate of 10%. VAT was introduced to more stuff, and to services as well, but stuff like food was exempt, just as Purchase Tax was able to exempt stuff previously (even now some Charity music is exempted from the VAT). So the indigenous Purchase tax was clunky, and had a higher average, and the Chancellor of the day could switch things about to curry favour with the electorate, or to advantage business mates. The 'European' VAT was less open to abuse, more streamlined, easier to understand and set at a lower figure than the average of the home grown Purchase Tax. It is mistaken to imply that VAT came marching into Britain to give us a kicking. It is the rate of VAT that is the real issue, not it's nationality!
Agreed purchase tax was by no means perfect but the elected UK government had complete autonomy in setting rates.
That is not the case with the EU tax VAT. There is SOME autonomy but not complete.
I think a fundamental principle of taxation is representation. VAT has been designed by an unelected commission in Brussels.
If we have a cold winter the chancellor cannot relieve the burden on the old and poor by removing the 5% VAT on gas and electric bills because that 5% VAT is a compulsory minimum rate set by the EU.
@Ormiston Addick Valid point mate. But how would you suggest we get a grip on immigration? I'm all for people coming here and contributing, and blending in society, speaking English (the same goes for Brits who move abroad, to speak the language).
I think immigrants do more good than bad to our economy and the like, but surely there is a feasible policy, which is fair, yet not labelled extremist??
Oh come on Len. You said VAT is a EU tax. You are wrong. The Wikipedia page lists countries such as Australia , NZ and India which have VAT. You can give it a different name if you like. But they call it VAT. It's all there on the Wikipedia site.
It's true that having a VAT is compulsory for all members. That was brought in because of all the new members still getting over Communist or fascist regimes. Everyone can also read on that page just how much flexibility there is. Too much, in my opinion. Notice though how Norway, a non EU Member has VAT, just as itS EU neighbours do. Norway is often trumpeted by Kippers as some kind of model, even though many seem to have very little grasp of Norways relationship with the EU.
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?
Australia is actually just coming to the end of a very long economic boom and is poised for a decade or more of Japan-style stagnation.
Unbelievable really, we have just had the longest resources boom in history and yet we are coming out the other side with a budget deficit and no signs of a return to surplus.
Immigration is a very, very hot issue here even though migration levels are tiny compared to European levels and the only way you can get people here illegally is by boat - a very risky and dangerous journey.
We do have the skilled migration system, but that is not possible in the UK because of the freedom of movement within the EU - you can't have your cake and eat it.
Have just read his blog post written in the aftermath of the show. If he got your attention last night, have a read of this too. He writes a bit flamboyantly... as he talks, but yeah. :-)
Have just read his blog post written in the aftermath of the show. If he got your attention last night, have a read of this too. He writes a bit flamboyantly... as he talks, but yeah. :-)
I've read it. I could do a critique. However it's too much trouble. So, in summary, on the one hand, he's clearly dismissive of the whole QT set-up but on the other, doesn't seem to want to mention how much he got paid for being on the show or how convenient it was for the BBC chauffeur to drop him at his front door afterwards... Derogatory comments about the loathsome Farage's drinking habits are all well and good - except, perhaps, when they come from a druggie. Pot and kettle.
He's been clean of all drugs and alcohol for almost twelve years and in the recent past, set up a fund through Comic Relief to help others who are struggling with a number of different addictions.
Have just read his blog post written in the aftermath of the show. If he got your attention last night, have a read of this too. He writes a bit flamboyantly... as he talks, but yeah. :-)
I've read it. I could do a critique. However it's too much trouble. So, in summary, on the one hand, he's clearly dismissive of the whole QT set-up but on the other, doesn't seem to want to mention how much he got paid for being on the show or how convenient it was for the BBC chauffeur to drop him at his front door afterwards...
Because nobody cares? And they would be incredibly odd things to mention? If he had mentioned them you'd be saying the opposite.
Watched on i-player, fundamental questions not addressed as usual, interesting personalities vying for air time including two "visionaries" that are just so exasperated that we haven't been able to see the big picture just like them. This zeal that those that "understand " have and us the lumpen blindfolded herd are supposedly lacking is to me, offensive. I can see the bigger picture too, I can suggest a set of principles and policies. I am annoyed and frustrated by injustice, inequality of opportunity and those that don't contribute. I choose not to attribute particular characteristics on the basis of those things beyond our control like birth. Fundamental questions - mentioned them earlier - I will not be able to do what I currently do as work until the proposed time of my retirement. I will need to do something else probably within the next five years to give myself a chance of making a go of it and earning enough to give me choices, the key to feeling ok generally. Within my lifetime the population will increase locally, nationally, globally. Under a capital based system we will all sink or swim, when enough are sinking there will be conflict. How do we avoid it? p.s. pulling up the drawbridge never works in the long run, when you're locked in looking out others will still be making decisions that will impact on us all.
Comments
1. in,
2. out,
3. shake it all about.
If the difference between evasion (illegal) and avoidance (legal) is as black and white as you suggest, then how come you get a situation where Vodafone claim they should pay £0, HMRC say they should pay £8,000,000,000, and then Vodafone and HMRC "settle" on £1,800,000,000? The implication is that HMRC are so incompetent that they over-calculated Vodafone's tax bill by 5 times. Sorry, I think they are incompetent, but not in the way that they don't know how to calculate tax according to their own rules. They settled because they haven't got the legal or professional clout to match the army of external smartasses that Vodafone (and Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc) can assemble. So they settle for a fraction of what Vodafone owe. Do you think Hartnett got a bonus for that, BTW? That is no way to run a country's tax regime, and I repeat, this, as much as immigration, is what is driving the cynicism and disaffection. If you want to see a populist left wing government come to power then keep on allowing VF and co to get away with this nonsense on the ground that "it's all legal"
You are however almost certainly correct that there would be some kind of "transactions" tax if we were ever to leave the EU but our own elected representatives would make the rules rather than an unelected Commission in Brussels.
Chances of UK VAT being abolished if we leave the EU? Zero
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/index_en.htm
I have said above that we would almost certainly have a "transactions" tax outside of the EU but the fundamental difference would be that our elected representatatives would set the rules rather than an unelected Commission in Brussels.
My memory isn't what it was, but I don't remember them being in the EU.
VAT is an EU tax.
Other countries have transactions taxes which is what VAT effectively is but VAT is an EU tax and the rules are made by the EU.
I've supplied the link there is little more I can do....
Please don't let this become your "Canterbury Prison" moment :-)
Effectively the UK taxpayer helps these large companies pay for their staff, the staff without which they could not generate such big profits, and then lets the coorporation keep most or all the rewards.
This is one of the major ways the UK is haemorrhaging money. Give money to the rich and they will lock it away in tax efficient savings, often abroad, or in capital investments that primarily benefit the individual.
Give more money to the poor and they will spend it, largely on trying to improve their and their children's prospects and quality of life, and the money stays liquid within the economy benefitting many.
I've repeatedly acknowledged the existence of transaction taxes outside of the EU and acknowledged that if we left the EU we would almost certainly introduce some sort of transactions tax in place of VAT.
None of that alters the fact that VAT is an EU tax however. Here is the link again:
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/index_en.htm
If you and others don't want to believe that VAT is an EU tax given the evidence nothing I can say will change your mind.
The average of Purchase Tax at the end of 1972 was 25%, and VAT was first introduced at a rate of 10%.
VAT was introduced to more stuff, and to services as well, but stuff like food was exempt, just as Purchase Tax was able to exempt stuff previously (even now some Charity music is exempted from the VAT).
So the indigenous Purchase tax was clunky, and had a higher average, and the Chancellor of the day could switch things about to curry favour with the electorate, or to advantage business mates. The 'European' VAT was less open to abuse, more streamlined, easier to understand and set at a lower figure than the average of the home grown Purchase Tax.
It is mistaken to imply that VAT came marching into Britain to give us a kicking. It is the rate of VAT that is the real issue, not it's nationality!
That is not the case with the EU tax VAT. There is SOME autonomy but not complete.
I think a fundamental principle of taxation is representation. VAT has been designed by an unelected commission in Brussels.
If we have a cold winter the chancellor cannot relieve the burden on the old and poor by removing the 5% VAT on gas and electric bills because that 5% VAT is a compulsory minimum rate set by the EU.
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/index_en.htm
Is that right? I don't think it is. I would rather my own elected, accountable government made these kind of decisions.
I think immigrants do more good than bad to our economy and the like, but surely there is a feasible policy, which is fair, yet not labelled extremist??
It's true that having a VAT is compulsory for all members. That was brought in because of all the new members still getting over Communist or fascist regimes. Everyone can also read on that page just how much flexibility there is. Too much, in my opinion. Notice though how Norway, a non EU Member has VAT, just as itS EU neighbours do. Norway is often trumpeted by Kippers as some kind of model, even though many seem to have very little grasp of Norways relationship with the EU.
Unbelievable really, we have just had the longest resources boom in history and yet we are coming out the other side with a budget deficit and no signs of a return to surplus.
Immigration is a very, very hot issue here even though migration levels are tiny compared to European levels and the only way you can get people here illegally is by boat - a very risky and dangerous journey.
We do have the skilled migration system, but that is not possible in the UK because of the freedom of movement within the EU - you can't have your cake and eat it.
Have just read his blog post written in the aftermath of the show. If he got your attention last night, have a read of this too. He writes a bit flamboyantly... as he talks, but yeah. :-)
Derogatory comments about the loathsome Farage's drinking habits are all well and good - except, perhaps, when they come from a druggie. Pot and kettle.
http://www.russellbrand.com/2013/03/give-it-up/
Fundamental questions - mentioned them earlier - I will not be able to do what I currently do as work until the proposed time of my retirement. I will need to do something else probably within the next five years to give myself a chance of making a go of it and earning enough to give me choices, the key to feeling ok generally. Within my lifetime the population will increase locally, nationally, globally. Under a capital based system we will all sink or swim, when enough are sinking there will be conflict.
How do we avoid it?
p.s. pulling up the drawbridge never works in the long run, when you're locked in looking out others will still be making decisions that will impact on us all.