UK Politics Thread XIII: The Brexit Ship Departs

[Vassenor]

How has lower taxes actually helped lower earners?

Targeting tax cuts on the lowest paid, increases their disposable income. I assumed this was obvious.

And yet the evidence is showing that government policy is in fact leaving them worse off.

[Celritannia]

None of these things are going to happen but I have a 7 point plan to boom the economy.

1) Cut fuel duty in half and also stop the practice of charging VAT on the price including the duty.

2) Abolish alcohol duty on draught beer and cider.

3) Cut employee NI contributions by 5%

4) Remove the financial transaction type taxes/levies that have been put on the financial sector since 2008.

5) Abolish Insurance premium tax.

6) Introduce a lower tier of corperation tax of 5% up to a threshold of £100,000

7) Reduce Inheritance tax to 10%. Anybody with any money doesn't pay it currently because it's actually relatively simple to dodge and there are plenty of ways to do it. So set it at a rate those people might not mind and get some money. 10% of something is better than 40% of nothing.

We could just make the use of offshore bank accounts and tax havens illegal,.

[The Nihilistic view]

Targeting tax cuts on the lowest paid, increases their disposable income. I assumed this was obvious.

And yet the evidence is showing that government policy is in fact leaving them worse off.

That's why we do points 1, 2, 3 and 5 from my 7 point plan!

[The Nihilistic view]

None of these things are going to happen but I have a 7 point plan to boom the economy.

1) Cut fuel duty in half and also stop the practice of charging VAT on the price including the duty.

2) Abolish alcohol duty on draught beer and cider.

3) Cut employee NI contributions by 5%

4) Remove the financial transaction type taxes/levies that have been put on the financial sector since 2008.

5) Abolish Insurance premium tax.

6) Introduce a lower tier of corperation tax of 5% up to a threshold of £100,000

7) Reduce Inheritance tax to 10%. Anybody with any money doesn't pay it currently because it's actually relatively simple to dodge and there are plenty of ways to do it. So set it at a rate those people might not mind and get some money. 10% of something is better than 40% of nothing.

We could just make the use of offshore bank accounts and tax havens illegal,.

In relation to what?

[Celritannia]

We could just make the use of offshore bank accounts and tax havens illegal,.

In relation to what?

Apologies, your 7th point.

[Ainland]

Targeting tax cuts on the lowest paid, increases their disposable income. I assumed this was obvious.

And yet the evidence is showing that government policy is in fact leaving them worse off.

You just can't help it. You seem insistent on having a generic "Tory bad" debate, and I already told you I'm not interested. I made a specific point about targeting tax cuts on the lowest paid, you don't support it. What about significant minimum wage rises? Do you welcome this, or oppose it also? Or does it just depend on which party it comes from? Because I'm more than happy to tell you plenty of brilliant things Labour have done, but I refuse to be drawn into a petty 'Tory bad' debate to feed your desire to argue. Like I said we haven't got a general election for three years, so could do with some positivity and pulling together for now. I can see this idea is lost on you.

You should try campaigning for the Labour Party though. You're just what the Conservative Party needs!

[Vassenor]

And yet the evidence is showing that government policy is in fact leaving them worse off.

You just can't help it. You seem insistent on having a generic "Tory bad" debate, and I already told you I'm not interested. I made a specific point about targeting tax cuts on the lowest paid, you don't support it. What about significant minimum wage rises? Do you welcome this, or oppose it also? Or does it just depend on which party it comes from? Because I'm more than happy to tell you plenty of brilliant things Labour have done, but I refuse to be drawn into a petty 'Tory bad' debate to feed your desire to argue. Like I said we haven't got a general election for three years, so could do with some positivity and pulling together for now. I can see this idea is lost on you.

You should try campaigning for the Labour Party though. You're just what the Conservative Party needs!

So it's a positive despite the evidence saying it hasn't helped?

I'm not going to stop criticizing the government just because you keep screaming for unity.

[Ainland]

There is no evidence that says low income people having more money does not help them.

[Vassenor]

There is no evidence that says low income people having more money does not help them.

Because you stuck your fingers in your ears and screamed when presented with the evidence.

Poor hit twice as hard as rich by tax-and-benefit changes since Conservatives came to power, independent analysis finds

[Ainland]

There is no evidence that says low income people having more money does not help them.

Because you stuck your fingers in your ears and screamed when presented with the evidence.

Poor hit twice as hard as rich by tax-and-benefit changes since Conservatives came to power, independent analysis finds

Calm down, dear. There is absolutely nothing in this article to support your claim that tax cuts on low income people, does not help them. I think, once again, you are conflating your general notion that the Tories are bad, with a specific claim

[Vassenor]

Because you stuck your fingers in your ears and screamed when presented with the evidence.

Poor hit twice as hard as rich by tax-and-benefit changes since Conservatives came to power, independent analysis finds

Calm down, dear. There is absolutely nothing in this article to support your claim that tax cuts on low income people, does not help them. I think, once again, you are conflating your general notion that the Tories are bad, with a specific claim

So what does the article actually say then?

The worst-off 10 per cent of households have lost 7 per cent of their income since 2010, they say – rising to 18 per cent among those families with children.

[...]

Income tax has also been cut, by raising the threshold at which it is paid, but – despite ministers’ rhetoric – those changes have mostly benefited workers higher up the income scale.

[...]

“On average, those in the upper middle of the income distribution have benefited the most from personal tax and benefit reforms and the poorest households have experienced the biggest proportional loss.”

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

None of these things are going to happen but I have a 7 point plan to boom the economy.

1) Cut fuel duty in half and also stop the practice of charging VAT on the price including the duty.

2) Abolish alcohol duty on draught beer and cider.

3) Cut employee NI contributions by 5%

4) Remove the financial transaction type taxes/levies that have been put on the financial sector since 2008.

5) Abolish Insurance premium tax.

6) Introduce a lower tier of corperation tax of 5% up to a threshold of £100,000

7) Reduce Inheritance tax to 10%. Anybody with any money doesn't pay it currently because it's actually relatively simple to dodge and there are plenty of ways to do it. So set it at a rate those people might not mind and get some money. 10% of something is better than 40% of nothing.

Sure if you want to assdestroy the planet more than humanity already does.

[The Nihilistic view]

In relation to what?

Apologise, your 7th point.

Yeah I thought that most likely but always best to check.

So I'm about to blow your mind, I have just agreed a plan with my mum that should effectively reduce the inheritance tax bill when she dies to nothing. It doesn't involve foriegn bank accounts and nor does she need to become a tax domicile of a tax haven. Also doesn't involve her handing me any assets now. The small hiccup as with a lot of IHT planning is she needs to probably live about 10 years to get it all properly sorted out but that can be mitigated by taking out a life insurance policy for this period. Obviously I hope she lives another 30 years.

You don't need to move any money abroad or use any of the "this is what rich people do" tropes.

You might think this surprising but I'd not really clocked IHT as something particularly nebulous. I still don't actually think this as it happens at the current rate with the current thresholds. However about 6 months ago after she called me in to help her work out how to provide a good income for herself without resorting to buying annuities as she approaches 60. I suddenly realised just how much IHT I would be on the hook for and obviously if I can avoid it great so that set me thinking about how to combine providing an income, and maybe even growing capital in a way that would remove any IHT liability.

So I've come to a practical standpoint on the rate, I've asked a bunch of friends and family what rate of IHT would they consider not worth escaping and 10%-15% became the average answer. Once you get past 15% the cost of reducing the IHT liability basically becomes a no brainer. I can imagine most people were opposed to any IHT but they figured that the costs and effort of dodging 10% weren't worth it at that level until you have gone significantly north of £10m outside of the existing allowances. Obviously this isn't peer revied investigation but the people I've talked to are the people that have significant assets to dispose of and are the people the tax mostly targets. They are also the people that will take and have taken steps to reduce any future IHT liability. So the question you should ask is one of practicality about how best to raise the revenue in a way that doesn't cause contention and incentives to dodge the tax.

[Hirota]

Probably donate to COVAX to help the third world get their hands on it (including migrants waiting to get into Fortress Europe, I imagine). I've not checked for a while but the UK was donating the most per capita at one point.

Bit concerning though that a UK minister ducked questions about whether or not poorer countries might be charged for the vaccine surplus

I would obviously hope we do not see to make a profit, but some countries might see fit to share the burden.

Of course, the China's Sionvac is being sold to third world countries, and Russians claim to have 1.2 billion paid orders of Sputnik V from third world countries, and interest from the EU which apparently includes staying quiet about human rights abuses to get the Russian vaccine... Anyhoo, my point is large numbers of the third world have in fact already paid for vaccines - if we can get some vaccines to them and we shoulder part of the costs, that's not the worst thing in the world, although giving them away would be a helpful counterbalance against some of the vaccine diplomacy going on...

[The Nihilistic view]

I actually wouldn't do all that offshore stuff myself and I'm not the sort or person that wants to deal with that kind of nonsense. Same with the disguised renumeration schemes, never used one and wouldn't ever say it was a good idea. The people that started to face income tax bills in 2019 over it I don't have a problem with. I don't buy the whole "we were told it was legal" because it just smells wrong. Set up a company, loan yourself the money from the company that has been paid by your employer and never pay it back. How on earth could you consider that the right thing to do? It just isn't.

The are plenty of perfectly legal ways to structure things to reduce overall tax liabilities, you don't need to stretch to those sorts of so obviously morally dubious measures to pay less tax.

[Celritannia]

I actually wouldn't do all that offshore stuff myself and I'm not the sort or person that wants to deal with that kind of nonsense. Same with the disguised renumeration schemes, never used one and wouldn't ever say it was a good idea. The people that started to face income tax bills in 2019 over it I don't have a problem with. I don't buy the whole "we were told it was legal" because it just smells wrong. Set up a company, loan yourself the money from the company that has been paid by your employer and never pay it back. How on earth could you consider that the right thing to do? It just isn't.

The are plenty of perfectly legal ways to structure things to reduce overall tax liabilities, you don't need to stretch to those sorts of so obviously morally dubious measures to pay less tax.

I mean sure, that's somewhat fine, I guess, if you are using legal ways.
But I still would prefer seeing anti-tax evasion laws.

[Ainland]

1) Cut fuel duty in half and also stop the practice of charging VAT on the price including the duty.

I really like this. Too often we hear from metropolitan folk with excellent public transport links, all about traffic congestion and the impact on the environment. But what about all the people who live in rural Britain? Who live in huge counties with no city, whose lives are spread around villages and towns connected only by country lanes and the occasional A road? Travelling 30 miles to one town to work, 20 miles to another to visit family, 40 miles to another to visit a certain business. Increasing fuel duty to address problems in cities, unfairly punishes people in these counties whose lives are so sprawled and have no other realistic way to travel. It is another example of some people being out of touch with the rest of the country, or people who aren't like them. Or who just assume that everyone who opposes fuel duty rises are either selfish or anti-environment.

[Vassenor]

1) Cut fuel duty in half and also stop the practice of charging VAT on the price including the duty.

I really like this. Too often we hear from metropolitan folk with excellent public transport links, all about traffic congestion and the impact on the environment. But what about all the people who live in rural Britain? Who live in huge counties with no city, whose lives are spread around villages and towns connected only by country lanes and the occasional A road? Travelling 30 miles to one town to work, 20 miles to another to visit family, 40 miles to another to visit a certain business. Increasing fuel duty to address problems in cities, unfairly punishes people in these counties whose lives are so sprawled and have no other realistic way to travel. It is another example of some people being out of touch with the rest of the country, or people who aren't like them. Or who just assume that everyone who opposes fuel duty rises are either selfish or anti-environment.

So why don't we hear from them, rather than just you asserting what they totally think?

[The Nihilistic view]

I actually wouldn't do all that offshore stuff myself and I'm not the sort or person that wants to deal with that kind of nonsense. Same with the disguised renumeration schemes, never used one and wouldn't ever say it was a good idea. The people that started to face income tax bills in 2019 over it I don't have a problem with. I don't buy the whole "we were told it was legal" because it just smells wrong. Set up a company, loan yourself the money from the company that has been paid by your employer and never pay it back. How on earth could you consider that the right thing to do? It just isn't.

The are plenty of perfectly legal ways to structure things to reduce overall tax liabilities, you don't need to stretch to those sorts of so obviously morally dubious measures to pay less tax.

I mean sure, that's somewhat fine, I guess, if you are using legal ways.
But I still would prefer seeing anti-tax evasion laws.

It's one of the reason I favour income and transactional taxes. They are the easiest to collect and it's pretty hard to get out of paying them completely. I would trade lower IHT and other such taxes for a higher income tax rate. Just remove the taxes that are easier to dodge and increase the ones that aren't.

[Ainland]

I really like this. Too often we hear from metropolitan folk with excellent public transport links, all about traffic congestion and the impact on the environment. But what about all the people who live in rural Britain? Who live in huge counties with no city, whose lives are spread around villages and towns connected only by country lanes and the occasional A road? Travelling 30 miles to one town to work, 20 miles to another to visit family, 40 miles to another to visit a certain business. Increasing fuel duty to address problems in cities, unfairly punishes people in these counties whose lives are so sprawled and have no other realistic way to travel. It is another example of some people being out of touch with the rest of the country, or people who aren't like them. Or who just assume that everyone who opposes fuel duty rises are either selfish or anti-environment.

So why don't we hear from them, rather than just you asserting what they totally think?

I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting that there are in fact not people calling for higher tax on fuel/opposing a reduction in tax on fuel? Or are you saying that nobody argues that this is the pro-environment approach?

[Vassenor]

So why don't we hear from them, rather than just you asserting what they totally think?

I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting that there are in fact not people calling for higher tax on fuel/opposing a reduction in tax on fuel? Or are you saying that nobody argues that this is the pro-environment approach?

I'm suggesting we let them speak for themselves rather than speaking for them.

[Celritannia]

I mean sure, that's somewhat fine, I guess, if you are using legal ways.
But I still would prefer seeing anti-tax evasion laws.

It's one of the reason I favour income and transactional taxes. They are the easiest to collect and it's pretty hard to get out of paying them completely. I would trade lower IHT and other such taxes for a higher income tax rate. Just remove the taxes that are easier to dodge and increase the ones that aren't.

Bu most wealth is held via inheritance, not income.

[Ainland]

I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting that there are in fact not people calling for higher tax on fuel/opposing a reduction in tax on fuel? Or are you saying that nobody argues that this is the pro-environment approach?

I'm suggesting we let them speak for themselves rather than speaking for them.

Speaking for who? It seems like you're just picking for an argument again. It's perfectly legitimate to say that I support s reduction in fuel duty, due to the impact on rural communities, and oppose the rhetoric from those who absolutely do claim this is an anti-environmental position, or that it is needed to reduce congestion in cities.

[Vassenor]

Remember, tax fraud costs us £20bn a year.

[Vassenor]

I'm suggesting we let them speak for themselves rather than speaking for them.

Speaking for who? It seems like you're just picking for an argument again. It's perfectly legitimate to say that I support s reduction in fuel duty, due to the impact on rural communities, and oppose the rhetoric from those who absolutely do claim this is an anti-environmental position, or that it is needed to reduce congestion in cities.

I'm picking for an argument by saying the people you claim to speak for should be able to speak for themselves?