PM statement at Number 10

[gadgetman]

46 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

I am involved in Labour party policy forum at Constituency level and I take the balancing of the books, something the Cons have comprehensively failed to do over the last 7 years with an imbalance of the books to the tune of over one billion pounds a week hence the UK national debt still rising at about £70B a year, and all policies are being spelt out how they will be afforded which reversing the UK's  currently increasing indebtedness.

 

Shadow Chancellor has said about looking to tax more those above £75K income per annum (phew just under that) and that in my view which I will put forward as a tax specialist, can be achieved by raising the starting rate of NI but importantly raising the point where it drops from the full rate to the lower rate which from memory is at around £45K where it drops to only 2% I recall, raising that transition point progressively to £50k, £55k, £60k etc year on year should bring in crates of money from people who can afford it and it can be use on NHS wages and services etc.   Not cutting corporation tax to well below the base personal rate is also something that is on the agenda for Labour, a company should pay tax at no less than its workers.  

 

So lots of info about balancing the books in a fairer way rather than lining the pockets of the already well off is the policy rather than the Cons saying they are strong but they are also so clearly wrong in what they do and their elementary level of understanding about how the EU works international trade is sadly going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the UK and end up with UK consumers having goods inflation several percent higher than their meager wage rises and result in misery for millions of people.

 

           

It's nothing about taxing the rich as well you know. 

 

It's a good headline but reality is most high earners who should pay 50% end up paying less tax than those taxed at 20%.

 

What is needed is removing every loophole and off set and just make everyone pay the same flat rate. 

 

But then in reality plenty in labour, the unions and other main parties wouldn't like that much. Wonder why 

[skomaz]

16 hours ago, lol-lol said:

 

John McDonnell (MSc) was Chair of Finance for the GLC and I think that he and JC can do much better than our current PM who has a second class BA degree in Geography.           

 

 

 

 

John McDonnell - MSc in Politics and Sociology???   that's very relevant to finance...   NOT!

[CWARD]

5 hours ago, lol-lol said:

I am involved in Labour party policy forum at Constituency level and I take the balancing of the books, something the Cons have comprehensively failed to do over the last 7 years with an imbalance of the books to the tune of over one billion pounds a week hence the UK national debt still rising at about £70B a year, and all policies are being spelt out how they will be afforded which reversing the UK's  currently increasing indebtedness.

 

Shadow Chancellor has said about looking to tax more those above £75K income per annum (phew just under that) and that in my view which I will put forward as a tax specialist, can be achieved by raising the starting rate of NI but importantly raising the point where it drops from the full rate to the lower rate which from memory is at around £45K where it drops to only 2% I recall, raising that transition point progressively to £50k, £55k, £60k etc year on year should bring in crates of money from people who can afford it and it can be use on NHS wages and services etc.   Not cutting corporation tax to well below the base personal rate is also something that is on the agenda for Labour, a company should pay tax at no less than its workers.  

 

So lots of info about balancing the books in a fairer way rather than lining the pockets of the already well off is the policy rather than the Cons saying they are strong but they are also so clearly wrong in what they do and their elementary level of understanding about how the EU works international trade is sadly going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the UK and end up with UK consumers having goods inflation several percent higher than their meager wage rises and result in misery for millions of people.

 

It will be a first if Labour can balance the books rather than go on a spending spree as they've done before. 

 

All well and good hiking up taxes for business as we leave the EU and wanting to attract business. The same businesses that create employment which brings in taxes again. Corporation tax is only one of the taxes a company pays, which as a tax specialist you should know, and the additional ones they do pay through both their activities and employment can be more substantial than the corporation tax itself.

When you start to tax the higher earners and they become less inclined to create new business and existing business look to relocate to other countries with less corporation tax where will you stimulate the economy and how will you fund without the taxes to do so?

Edited 27 April, 2017 by CWARD

[VWD]

On 20/04/2017 at 13:59, domhnall said:

"Scotland free form interference from outside influence"

 

can you show me where the SNP have said that? They moved a long time ago to advocating a position where Scvotland has the same say in international bodies as most other countries. Other than North Korea very few countries are free from external influence. Right now Scotland has 1 tory MP yet the Tories speak for Scotland in Europe and the UN. The EU is about pooled sovereignty in certain areas and joint or pooled decision making (because it is not "them" telling "us" what to do as styled by the Brexiteers). Right now Scvotland has a bigger population than countries like Ireland and Malta (both of which Britain argued would never be able to survive as independent countries) and yet has smaller representation (no one on the council of ministers and fewer MEPs).

 

I agree the position makes no sense if you think the SNP is about isolationism and if you believe the Daily Mail line about how the EU works. Both of those would, however, be misunderstandings of the reality. 

 

Hope that helps :-)

 

 

It doesn't. i'm one of the old style SNP supporters  (FYI long before we joined the EU), where the main aim of the SNP was to get rid of Westminster influence  ( and the OLD Tory style Government, be it by Labour/Tory or the Liberal party) ,  unless under the new regime, it's changed.

 

[lol-lol]

5 hours ago, CWARD said:

 

It will be a first if Labour can balance the books rather than go on a spending spree as they've done before. 

All well and good hiking up taxes for business as we leave the EU and wanting to attract business. The same businesses that create employment which brings in taxes again. Corporation tax is only one of the taxes a company pays, which as a tax specialist you should know, and the additional ones they do pay through both their activities and employment can be more substantial than the corporation tax itself.

When you start to tax the higher earners and they become less inclined to create new business and existing business look to relocate to other countries with less corporation tax where will you stimulate the economy and how will you fund without the taxes to do so?

 

Just plain wrong.  You have been a victim of Con paper inaccuracies.

Here is the facts rather than a history rewrite from the Ministry of Truth Mail/Telegraph etc....... 

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/comment-page-1/

 

 

The next task was very simple: I  calculated the total net borrowing in Labour and Conservative years and averaged them by the number of years in office. All figures are stated billions of pounds in all the tables that follow and in this case are in original values i.e. in the prices of the periods when they actually occurred:

 

The Conservatives borrowed more, not just absolutely (which is unsurprising as they had more years in office), but on average.

This though, is a bit unfair: the value of money changes over time. So I restated all borrowing in 2014 prices to eliminate the bias this gives rise to. This resulted in the following table:

 

In current prices the Conservatives still borrowed more (much more) overall, and on average, by a long way.

 

( Richard Murphy (59) is a chartered accountant and a political economist. He has been described by the Guardian newspaper as an “anti-poverty campaigner and tax expert”. He is Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City University, London and Director of Tax Research UK. He is a non-executive director of Cambridge Econometrics.

According to International Tax Review Richard was the 7th most influential person in global tax in 2013. In 2016 Richard was in the same journal’s Global Top 50 in tax, one of only two people to have been so for the whole five years it had published such a list. )

 

[gadgetman]

1 hour ago, lol-lol said:

 

( Richard Murphy (59) is a chartered accountant and a political economist. He has been described by the Guardian newspaper as an “anti-poverty campaigner and tax expert”. He is Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City University, London and Director of Tax Research UK. He is a non-executive director of Cambridge Econometrics.

According to International Tax Review Richard was the 7th most influential person in global tax in 2013. In 2016 Richard was in the same journal’s Global Top 50 in tax, one of only two people to have been so for the whole five years it had published such a list. )

 

The very same Richard Murphy who, as I've read in a number of sources, not so long ago made his money helping people/companies avoid tax. 

 

To call him ethical is a bit rich. I would research him a little further before you go hailing him as some kind of hero 

Edited 27 April, 2017 by gadgetman

[lol-lol]

9 minutes ago, gadgetman said:

The very same Richard Murphy who, as I've read in a number of sources, not so long ago made his money helping people/companies avoid tax. 

To call him ethical is a bit rich. I would research him a little further before you go hailing him as some kind of hero 

 

Tax avoidance is not illegal, we just about all do it to a degree ie pay money in to our pension funds which is avoids paying tax, it is tax evasion that is illegal, dictionaries are available.

 

Where was the word ethical used?   RM is an expert who is quoting facts, sadly lacking on those carrying out the Con campaign or support it from a position of ignorance and misguided programming from media which has its own agenda of profiteering and especially for the overseas owners of the News International, non-dom owners of the Mail etc. 

 

Facts please not hollow statements.  

[gadgetman]

44 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

Tax avoidance is not illegal, we just about all do it to a degree ie pay money in to our pension funds which is avoids paying tax, it is tax evasion that is illegal, dictionaries are available.

But it's morally wrong. 

 

You can champion him if you wish. I see him as much of a crook as those he has decided to publicly chastise. 

 

A good place to start researching the magnificent Mr Murphy is http://www.timworstall.com/category/ragging-on-ritchie/

 

Amazing how short some people's memories are 

Edited 27 April, 2017 by gadgetman

[Ootohere]

I listen the other week to Prof Richard Murphy for the first time.

Not ever again though on any other show..

 

Edited 27 April, 2017 by Awayoffski

[CWARD]

He can analyse his figures which ever way he likes but when was the last time Labour lost power and the country's treasury was in a good state.

 

Anyway Lol-lol, you responded to my first sentence but the main part of my post you ignored. You should go into politics you have all the spin, plenty of quotes and no answers like the rest of the idiots we have running our political parties at the moment. 

[lol-lol]

8 hours ago, CWARD said:

 

It will be a first if Labour can balance the books rather than go on a spending spree as they've done before. 

 

All well and good hiking up taxes for business as we leave the EU and wanting to attract business. The same businesses that create employment which brings in taxes again. Corporation tax is only one of the taxes a company pays, which as a tax specialist you should know, and the additional ones they do pay through both their activities and employment can be more substantial than the corporation tax itself.   When you start to tax the higher earners and they become less inclined to create new business and existing business look to relocate to other countries with less corporation tax where will you stimulate the economy and how will you fund without the taxes to do so?

 

It is not a case of hiking them up but not dropping to well below the basic rate of taxation for individuals.  Businesses may or may not create employment depending on the nature of the investment ie highly automated WH or a very manual one.  Accountant and Consultant evaluate it and come with a suggested path or paths and investors and management make their choices.  Areas I implement regularly is bonded/customs warehouse or Processing schemes, they are tax (customs duty) avoidance schemes but they also have a usually much bigger element of those employees and employers paying PAYE and Corporation tax which benefit the country more.  Within HMRC we have carried many exercises as to the relative effective of taxes ie VAT, was 8% and now 20%, affects the poor much more than wealthy and wealthy can often avoid by using a company's VAT to reclaim VAT and use the goods personally, happens all the time.  Excise duties, particularly fuel duty is a very good way to collect duty, hyper efficient. So Corp tax back at 20%, VAT down to 15% now and lower after BREXIT, duty of fuel to go up with inflation, probably wage inflation rather than CPI.  Stimulating the economy is going to be difficult with so many business ie BMW-Mini, JLR etc moving production abroad.  Hopefully we will be able to keep and grow more of the IT and Pharma jobs which are less dependent on access to the Single Market.     

[lol-lol]

58 minutes ago, gadgetman said:

But it's morally wrong.  You can champion him if you wish. I see him as much of a crook as those he has decided to publicly chastise. 

 

A good place to start researching the magnificent Mr Murphy is http://www.timworstall.com/category/ragging-on-ritchie/

 

Amazing how short some people's memories are 

 

Tim Worstall, the UKIP Press Officer?    I am ashamed he is a Devonian.  

Stoke may well have been a tide turn for them, we will see in the local and General election but we are going to see in the two elections.

 

Tax avoidance is positively encouraged by the government and the various concessions are there to have positive side effects. So they will let me put £20K or so, or even £40K, each year in to my pension pot, giving me tax relief at 40%, as the deem it is beneficial for me and others to invest chunks of our pay in to investment, bonds, gilts, equity etc.

 

It is tax evasion that is illegal.

 

[Ootohere]

The UK in the European Union was good for the German Corporation to build cars in the UK / EU, and the Indian Owner to buy JLR and build vehicles in the UK/EU, 

so now the UK is leaving the EU.  They can not expect just to carry on being bribed to build cars in the UK.

 

People wanted BREXIT and they are getting BREXIT and those with not much look like they have to pay the cost. 

That is what a Referendum Result means, swings and roundabouts, jobs will go and people might just need to dig for Britain. 

Work hard for low pay or no pay.

[CWARD]

I thought you said that you worked for HMRC, in which case you would know that goods for personal use can't have the VAT reclaimed. If an individual uses a company asset for private use then it attracts benefit in kind charged to individual at 20% of the initial cost per year and added to their income to be taxable with the company paying Class 1a NI at 13.8%.

That is just nit picking at your misunderstanding of VAT as it is a consumption tax borne by the end user. Businesses merely collect it on behalf of HMRC. 

Your big plan on taxation to stimulate growth in this country as your "involved in Labour party policy forum at Constituency level and I take the balancing of the books" is to cut 5% off VAT to increase consumer spending and not really change anything else other than raise wages higher than CPI. 

Absolutely no idea how this will encourage growth and investment within the country. 

 

[Breezy_Pete]

Remember mate, arguing with certain people is as useful as punching yourself in the face.

[CWARD]

Just trying to keep the BS down to an acceptable level but as a Bill Murray said "It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person." 

[trundlenut]

12 minutes ago, CWARD said:

I thought you said that you worked for HMRC, in which case you would know that goods for personal use can't have the VAT reclaimed. If an individual uses a company asset for private use then it attracts benefit in kind charged to individual at 20% of the initial cost per year and added to their income to be taxable with the company paying Class 1a NI at 13.8%.

That is just nit picking at your misunderstanding of VAT as it is a consumption tax borne by the end user. Businesses merely collect it on behalf of HMRC. 

Your big plan on taxation to stimulate growth in this country as your "involved in Labour party policy forum at Constituency level and I take the balancing of the books" is to cut 5% off VAT to increase consumer spending and not really change anything else other than raise wages higher than CPI. 

Absolutely no idea how this will encourage growth and investment within the country. 

 

Doesn't mean it doesn't happen and wouldn't be very very difficult to prove. 

[CWARD]

Just now, trundlenut said:

Doesn't mean it doesn't happen and wouldn't be very very difficult to prove. 

 

True and doesn't stop people working cash in hand either. Lots of people evade taxes but the vast majority don't. 

[trundlenut]

5 minutes ago, CWARD said:

 

True and doesn't stop people working cash in hand either. Lots of people evade taxes but the vast majority don't. 

Yes, but the average man on the street can't do it, but if you run a vat registered company guess what...

 

A lot of its down to enforcement,  one place I worked at had only been checked by the vat man once in more than 15 years.

[lol-lol]

19 minutes ago, CWARD said:

I thought you said that you worked for HMRC, in which case you would know that goods for personal use can't have the VAT reclaimed. If an individual uses a company asset for private use then it attracts benefit in kind charged to individual at 20% of the initial cost per year and added to their income to be taxable with the company paying Class 1a NI at 13.8%.

That is just nit picking at your misunderstanding of VAT as it is a consumption tax borne by the end user. Businesses merely collect it on behalf of HMRC. 

Your big plan on taxation to stimulate growth in this country as your "involved in Labour party policy forum at Constituency level and I take the balancing of the books" is to cut 5% off VAT to increase consumer spending and not really change anything else other than raise wages higher than CPI. 

Absolutely no idea how this will encourage growth and investment within the country. 

 

Yes 10 years for HMRC before getting headhunted by a Big 6/4 company.  VAT is not supposed to be claimed on goods used for personal use but surprise, surprise they widely are and it is easy to do so and get away with it especially with the huge cuts in HMRC Visiting staff (was suppose to meet some today at a International Trade meeting but they have been told not to meet and give away their position, or lack of it).  I do get wacked for car allowance,  fuel and private medical and that is at 40% as a BIK of course, fortunately lost of other tax concessions ie no mileage allowance and pension contributions far outweight those.

 

Corporation Tax, PAYE and VAT are full of concessions and with a poorly manned HMRC individuals and companies get away with blue murder, Excise taxes are far more efficient we surmised in HMRC and it is almost as if the gov does not want to clamp down on this, perhaps in fear in hurting those who support them with money and votes.  Most of us were in the NUCPS when I was with HMRC and we showed that an average officer collected 10 times for than they cost but the Cons still cut the numbers.  

 

A soft BREXIT will help growth, hard BREXIT, according to PwC and the like, will result in a downturn of several percent.  Raise Excise Duty back in line with inflation and drop VAT and collect the taxes that are owed rather than running HMRC in to the ground where you struggle to get a visit to set up new business facilities currently.  

 

[CWARD]

Anyone can fiddle their taxes. I've come across people who have used their full tax allowances in more than one employment. Claim tax back on work related expenses that never happened. Drive a van for personal use and claim it's only taken home for security. 

Enforcement is the problem as more and more businesses are randomly checked by HMRC or it's a campaign against particular trades recent ones being plumbers and restaurants.

[Ootohere]

Head Hunted, snatch from the competition. That's the way to be, special skills, knowledge and in the right place at the right time.

Like the UK sitting were it is, important to the defence of Europe & the USA, well sometimes.

[lol-lol]

25 minutes ago, CWARD said:

 

True and doesn't stop people working cash in hand either. Lots of people evade taxes but the vast majority don't. 

 

https://www.cchdaily.co.uk/hmrc-not-doing-enough-tackle-ps15bn-online-vat-losses

 

HMRC not doing enough to tackle £1.5bn online VAT losses

 

HMRC’s understanding of the amount of tax lost to online VAT fraud and error, which it says may be up to £1.5bn annually, and its efforts to tackle the problem, have been criticised by the National Audit Office (NAO) as lacking sufficient detail or urgency

20 Apr 2017

Pat Sweet   Reporter, CCH Daily and Accountancy

View profile and articles.

The NAO has conducted an investigation into the concerns raised by the public accounts committee and a number of UK trader organisations that online sellers based outside the EU are not charging VAT on their goods located in the UK when sold to UK customers. Online sales accounted for 14.5% of all UK retail sales in 2016 with just over half of these conducted through online marketplaces.  HMRC’s estimate of a loss of between £1bn and £1.5bn in tax revenue in 2015-16 is described by the NAO as ‘subject to a high level of uncertainty’. This estimate represents between 8% and 12% of the total VAT tax gap of £12.2bn for that year, but the NAO says UK trader groups believe the problem is widespread, and that some of the biggest online sellers of particular products, such as mobile phone accessories, are not charging VAT. These estimates also exclude wider impacts, such as the distortion of the competitive market landscape.  Trader groups and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute claim that online VAT fraud has been a problem as early as 2009, which has got significantly worse in the past five years, during which time many sellers have moved to a fulfilment house model where goods are stored and delivered from a UK warehouse.  While HMRC did identify online VAT fraud and error as one of its key risks in 2014 and began to increase resources in this area in 2015, the NAO is critical of its efforts.  It says the UK trader groups who raised the issue report having experienced the impact of this problem through progressively fewer sales. They consider HMRC has been slow in reacting to the emerging problem of online VAT fraud and error and that there do not seem to be penalties of sufficient severity to act as a substantial deterrent.  The NAO points out that HMRC’s own strategic threat assessment, carried out in 2014, concluded it was highly likely that both organised criminal groups based in the UK and overseas sellers in China were using fulfilment houses to facilitate the transit of undervalued or misclassified goods, or both, from China to the UK for sale online.  However, the investigation found that HMRC still cannot be certain how many fulfilment houses there are in the UK and, in 2017, estimated the number at between 500 and 3,000.  HMRC’s assessment is that online VAT losses are due to a range of non-compliant behaviours, but the NAO says it has not yet been able to assess how much is due to lack of awareness, error or deliberate fraud. UK trader groups told the investigation there is more that HMRC and online marketplaces could do with seller data which would identify potentially non-compliant sellers.  

To date, there have been no prosecutions for online VAT fraud but HMRC has carried out many civil operations, including 279 investigations of businesses and 373 compliance interventions in 2016-17.

 

[@Lee]

Any chance of actually bringing this back round to the posted topic about TM thinking she can get a mandate she says she already has which was decided by the will of the people so that she can create a strong and stable government with a deep and special relationship with the EU?

Meanwhile, BoJo's sister has said she's converting to Lib Dem.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39739546

Remember. 'Strong and United'.

[trundlenut]

8 minutes ago, Lee01 said:

Any chance of actually bringing this back round to the posted topic about TM thinking she can get a mandate she says she already has which was decided by the will of the people so that she can create a strong and stable government with a deep and special relationship with the EU?

Meanwhile, BoJo's sister has said she's converting to Lib Dem.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39739546

Remember. 'Strong and United'.

She needs the country to be strong and United because the EU keep saying mean things about the UK government.  The very notion of slagging off the other side ahead of negotiations is obviously absolutely reprehensible to May and her fellow ministers...