One really important question remains unanswered
- Thread starter David Rose
- Start date
Stuart France
Active member
I thought the topic was the President Elect? So what have Presidents been saying? I am spoiled for choice:
?When we got into office, the thing that surprised me the most was to find that things were just as bad as we had been saying they were? - Kennedy
?We cannot be the world?s leading champion of peace and the world?s leading supplier of weapons? - Carter
?Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realise it bears a very close resemblance to the first.? - Reagan
?There?s nothing wrong with this country that a good election cannot fix? - Nixon
?It depends on what the meaning of ?is? is? - Clinton
?This war on terrorism is going to take a while? Bush Jnr
?I'm the President, and I'm not going to eat any more broccoli? - Bush Snr
?Don?t say the first thing that pops into your head? - Obama
?The only reason to vote Democrat is if you?re tired of winning? - Trump
?We?re facing a battle for the soul of this nation? - Biden
?When we got into office, the thing that surprised me the most was to find that things were just as bad as we had been saying they were? - Kennedy
?We cannot be the world?s leading champion of peace and the world?s leading supplier of weapons? - Carter
?Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realise it bears a very close resemblance to the first.? - Reagan
?There?s nothing wrong with this country that a good election cannot fix? - Nixon
?It depends on what the meaning of ?is? is? - Clinton
?This war on terrorism is going to take a while? Bush Jnr
?I'm the President, and I'm not going to eat any more broccoli? - Bush Snr
?Don?t say the first thing that pops into your head? - Obama
?The only reason to vote Democrat is if you?re tired of winning? - Trump
?We?re facing a battle for the soul of this nation? - Biden
pwhole
Well-known member
This was a really good piece on what we touched on earlier about the interconnectedness of all things bent in government - or as they put it - the 'chumocracy':
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/15/chumocracy-covid-revealed-shape-tory-establishment
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/15/chumocracy-covid-revealed-shape-tory-establishment
Graigwen
Active member
The power struggle for the succession has been going on for some time, with "leaked" stories being trotted out by the compliant press.
This morning among the headlines on Google News is this piece in the Daily Mail "The Chancellor is reportedly 'very interested' in the idea of a national road pricing scheme - which would steer motorists into a new 'pay-as-you-drive' type system. ". There is no source for this story. I suspect it is just a piece of black propaganda placed in a tame newspaper to damage Sunak's standing. All sides are at it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8951969/Rishi-Sunak-considers-plan-charge-motorists-mile-drive-Britains-roads.html
This morning among the headlines on Google News is this piece in the Daily Mail "The Chancellor is reportedly 'very interested' in the idea of a national road pricing scheme - which would steer motorists into a new 'pay-as-you-drive' type system. ". There is no source for this story. I suspect it is just a piece of black propaganda placed in a tame newspaper to damage Sunak's standing. All sides are at it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8951969/Rishi-Sunak-considers-plan-charge-motorists-mile-drive-Britains-roads.html
pwhole
Well-known member
It is interesting that article origin isn't attributed to anyone or backed up by any public statements of intent - presumably these guys are 'embedded' within the Downing Street press corps and get fed this guff at hourly intervals to give them something to write about. Not that it's unique to the Mail. If I were richer I would subscribe to all the paper sites, purely to get some 'balance', though I'd never do anything useful if so.
It's staggering to think that it's not even controversial that someone like Owen Paterson can earn ?520.81 an hour for his extremely part-time job as a 'consultant' for a testing firm, though it's difficult to understand what he might do for them exactly, given his career specialisation and family business is in leather goods. Though he does approve of GM foods, so maybe he also has shares in biotech companies making vaccines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Paterson
Perhaps his enthusiasm for all things Brexit might soon allow him more opportunities to expand his portfolio. I would imagine the design and printing of customs declaration forms could be quite lucrative over the next few years. Damn, another great business idea given away for free. There's no wonder I'm poor.
It's staggering to think that it's not even controversial that someone like Owen Paterson can earn ?520.81 an hour for his extremely part-time job as a 'consultant' for a testing firm, though it's difficult to understand what he might do for them exactly, given his career specialisation and family business is in leather goods. Though he does approve of GM foods, so maybe he also has shares in biotech companies making vaccines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Paterson
Perhaps his enthusiasm for all things Brexit might soon allow him more opportunities to expand his portfolio. I would imagine the design and printing of customs declaration forms could be quite lucrative over the next few years. Damn, another great business idea given away for free. There's no wonder I'm poor.
crickleymal
New member
Actually a pay as you drive scheme would be reasonably fair. I've long advocated abolishing the vehicle excise duty replacing it with a levy on fuel. That way the more you drive and the more uneconomic your vehicle the more you pay. But with the demise of petrol and diesel I suppose they will have to get their pound of flesh elsewhere.
RobinGriffiths
Well-known member
It will be 'pay as you walk' next, succeeded promptly by 'pay as you breathe'.
JoshW
Well-known member
was having a similar conversation with my dad last night, I'd happily (as a basic tax rate payer) pay a higher tax rate, provided that those who were able to give even more did. i.e. either introduce some sort of super tax or increase the higher and additional tax rates by a higher amount. Also moving capital gains taxes in line with income taxes.
pay as you drive tax schemes would likely disproportionately affect low earners who will be possibly working jobs at weird times (no public transport) and travelling longer distances to their jobs (can't work from home, can't afford to be picky about where they live).
pay as you drive tax schemes would likely disproportionately affect low earners who will be possibly working jobs at weird times (no public transport) and travelling longer distances to their jobs (can't work from home, can't afford to be picky about where they live).
The current marginal rates of tax for a graduate now are:
Up to ?27k = 32%
?27-?50k = 41%
?50-100k = 51%
?100-125k = 71%
This is ignoring company NI, which is a fair chunk that is a tax on your employment, but is hidden from most. For the lowest band that would turn 32% into something like 40%.
The ?100-150k band is really distorting because of the back calculation of pension contributions that can result in zero income. The NHS has had to start subsidising consultants tax bills because they refused to work for free, unsurprisingly.
I would suggest that headroom is limited, and is why governments borrow rather than increase taxes. Borrowing is someone else's problem in the future and doesn't get you unelected very easily. It's boiling frog syndrome.
The latest wheeze is QE, which is basically printing money despite strenuous assertions to the contrary. Issue gilts, then create money to buy them and leave them in storage until they expire. The UK is up to ?875bn. So instead of income tax rises you get debasement of the currency, a very flat tax. This and lawyers did for the Romans.
Buy Swiss Francs, you know it makes sense because it has done for 50 years.
Up to ?27k = 32%
?27-?50k = 41%
?50-100k = 51%
?100-125k = 71%
This is ignoring company NI, which is a fair chunk that is a tax on your employment, but is hidden from most. For the lowest band that would turn 32% into something like 40%.
The ?100-150k band is really distorting because of the back calculation of pension contributions that can result in zero income. The NHS has had to start subsidising consultants tax bills because they refused to work for free, unsurprisingly.
I would suggest that headroom is limited, and is why governments borrow rather than increase taxes. Borrowing is someone else's problem in the future and doesn't get you unelected very easily. It's boiling frog syndrome.
The latest wheeze is QE, which is basically printing money despite strenuous assertions to the contrary. Issue gilts, then create money to buy them and leave them in storage until they expire. The UK is up to ?875bn. So instead of income tax rises you get debasement of the currency, a very flat tax. This and lawyers did for the Romans.
Buy Swiss Francs, you know it makes sense because it has done for 50 years.
PeteHall
Moderator
If you are interested in fairer taxation systems, I have long advocated a Land Value Tax (LVT), or Georgism*. Rather than being taxed on productivity, citizens effectively pay society for the use of the land they occupy, at a rate determined by the market.
Ultimately, our nation state is defined in terms of its land area. We, as land users deprive other citizens of using "our" bit of the nation, by occupying it with our home or business and the state defends our right to do so.
Paying for what we take from the nation is surely a much fairer form of taxation than paying for what we give to the nation through our productivity.
This principle could easily be extended to taxation on the damage we do to our nation through the pollution and waste we create as consumers.
In either case, you are paying for what you take away from society, rather than what you give to society.
Obviously this will never take off as those with influence (the so called top 1%) are generally where they are due to historic land ownership, inflation of land values and rent seeking; you can hardly blame them, they've been successful in the current system and are quite happy to maintain the status quo, but it's hardly a fair system for the rest of us...
*The term "Georgist philosophy" refers to the economic analysis and social philosophy advanced by the North American economist Henry George (1839-1897). The Georgist philosophy advocates equal rights for all and special privileges for none. It affirms a universal right for all to share in the gifts and opportunities provided by nature.
Central to this philosophy is the conviction that social problems must be traced to their root causes and remedied at that level, rather than by dealing with mere symptoms. The science of political economy, whose task is to explore such root causes, can and must be understood not just by experts but by everyday people, so that injustice and corruption cannot be foisted on an unwitting public. Economic analysis shows that land values, which are due to natural and social processes, should be the source of public revenue, and that taxes on labor, thrift and industry should be eliminated. Properly understood, economics is not a "dismal science" but a guide for achieving justice and sustainable prosperity.
Ultimately, our nation state is defined in terms of its land area. We, as land users deprive other citizens of using "our" bit of the nation, by occupying it with our home or business and the state defends our right to do so.
Paying for what we take from the nation is surely a much fairer form of taxation than paying for what we give to the nation through our productivity.
This principle could easily be extended to taxation on the damage we do to our nation through the pollution and waste we create as consumers.
In either case, you are paying for what you take away from society, rather than what you give to society.
Obviously this will never take off as those with influence (the so called top 1%) are generally where they are due to historic land ownership, inflation of land values and rent seeking; you can hardly blame them, they've been successful in the current system and are quite happy to maintain the status quo, but it's hardly a fair system for the rest of us...
*The term "Georgist philosophy" refers to the economic analysis and social philosophy advanced by the North American economist Henry George (1839-1897). The Georgist philosophy advocates equal rights for all and special privileges for none. It affirms a universal right for all to share in the gifts and opportunities provided by nature.
Central to this philosophy is the conviction that social problems must be traced to their root causes and remedied at that level, rather than by dealing with mere symptoms. The science of political economy, whose task is to explore such root causes, can and must be understood not just by experts but by everyday people, so that injustice and corruption cannot be foisted on an unwitting public. Economic analysis shows that land values, which are due to natural and social processes, should be the source of public revenue, and that taxes on labor, thrift and industry should be eliminated. Properly understood, economics is not a "dismal science" but a guide for achieving justice and sustainable prosperity.
The problem with LVT is that the most valuable land has houses in it. One little housing estate in Ingleton has a far higher land value than Casterton and Leck fells, and always will because you can?t build on the fells.
So the vast bulk will fall on ordinary people. If you exclude housing, land values are pitiful. We already massively subsidise farming, they can?t pay it.
You end up with most LVT being paid by houses in places like London. I would be the first to agree that people in London should pay way higher council tax than us up here, but they might not see it that way.
I pay way more council tax than the same band in Chelsea (and an order of magnitude higher by house price), which is annoying but the price of having to pay for stuff in rural areas.
So the vast bulk will fall on ordinary people. If you exclude housing, land values are pitiful. We already massively subsidise farming, they can?t pay it.
You end up with most LVT being paid by houses in places like London. I would be the first to agree that people in London should pay way higher council tax than us up here, but they might not see it that way.
I pay way more council tax than the same band in Chelsea (and an order of magnitude higher by house price), which is annoying but the price of having to pay for stuff in rural areas.
Income tax is 20%, 40%. Personal allowance is clawed back between 100-125k.
Student loan is 9% above ?27k odd.
NI is 12% then 2% above ?50k.
Company NI is 13.6%, but that was ignored.
Weirder things happen around ?150k, but am ignoring that as you are well into the 1%. Pension allowances are basically cancelled for one thing.
Gordon Brown in 2006 let you put ?250k into a pension. Now it?s ?40k and sliding to noneish above about ?120k (very bizarre rules, lets not go there).
If half the population are going to uni, and let's be honest they will make up most higher earners, then these are the tax rates for those that need to pay for everything.
Student loan is 9% above ?27k odd.
NI is 12% then 2% above ?50k.
Company NI is 13.6%, but that was ignored.
Weirder things happen around ?150k, but am ignoring that as you are well into the 1%. Pension allowances are basically cancelled for one thing.
Gordon Brown in 2006 let you put ?250k into a pension. Now it?s ?40k and sliding to noneish above about ?120k (very bizarre rules, lets not go there).
If half the population are going to uni, and let's be honest they will make up most higher earners, then these are the tax rates for those that need to pay for everything.
PeteHall
Moderator
Umm, yes. The vast bulk of tax does fall on ordinary people, but this should be proportional to what they take from society, not what they give to society.Fjell said:
Houses and businesses. In places like London and other cities. City centre land is at a premium, they don't make it any more. People chose to live, or set up business in cities due to the benefits provided by the location. It is perfectly reasonable that they pay more tax to take these benefits.Fjell said:
Yeah, but the value is entirely created by the companies being there. They don?t have to be, the vast majority are not British. If you add tens of billions their tax bill, they might decide elsewhere would be more pragmatic. And that won?t be in the UK.
Brexit might be about to demonstrate that.
Brexit might be about to demonstrate that.
JoshW
Well-known member
Fjell said:
ahh gotcha, obviously ignoring tax free allowance and lower earnings limit (or is this just applicable to employer NIs, can never remember).
still can't get your 71% though (even accounting for reducing tax free allowance) - 45+2+9=57% - and frankly by the time you're looking at 100k plus I'd imagine you can't be far off paying off student loans.
It is an unnecessary complicated tax system, sack off employee NIs altogether, and raise the higher and additional tax rates to account for it. Match CGT to the new income tax rates. much easier.