The "coalition cuts" megathread

[I1L2T3]

When Cameron accepted Clegg's proposal for a premium for poor performing kids in school, it would have looked completely nonsensical for the coalition government to have axed SureStart. Had the Tories been in government alone, I feel sure the axe would haven fallen on SureStart, just as it is about to fall in any case on the Child Trust Funds.

 

Tories won't have forgotten about Surestart. They'll have another nibble at it.

[Guest sibon]

It might be if you'd have understood it, but first you should understand the enormous gulf between evasion and avoidance and maybe then we can move the discussion on.

 

If you read my well constructed diatribe carefully, you should be able to notice that I have differentiated very carefully between the two.

 

That should help to move the discussion on.

[mystes]

If this is the nicer cuts then we should saved a lot more for rainy days..

[Tony]

My post still isn't shameful though is it? But I'll treat with you anyway.

 

On to tax evasion and tax avoidance. If you consider The IR estimates to be correct, then paying off the deficit is a relatively straightforward issue. Gather together all the tax evading members of our society, tip them upside down and shake their pockets out. Voila... in less than two years, we have no deficit. I pay all of my taxes, why should others not do the same? Do the "wealth creators" play by different rules?

 

After that, tackle the laws that allow tax avoidance, then we will be in surplus.

 

1. Citation on your stat's please.

2. Why are you implying that wealth creators are tax avoiders

3. What laws allow tax avoidance and how would you 'tackle them' ?

 

 

This is quite O/T, so you might want to set up a new thread.

[Wildcat]

It might be if you'd have understood it, but first you should understand the enormous gulf between evasion and avoidance and maybe then we can move the discussion on.

 

Perhaps you are missing the obvious similarities in intention and effect and that we are talking about what should be done through legislation, not what currently can be done within the existing legal framework.

[Wildcat]

My post still isn't shameful though is it? But I'll treat with you anyway.

 

 

 

1. Citation on your stat's please.

2. Why are you implying that wealth creators are tax avoiders

3. What laws allow tax avoidance and how would you 'tackle them' ?

 

 

This is quite O/T, so you might want to set up a new thread.

 

1,2 & 3 are covered here:

http://www.pcs.org.uk/taxjusticedoc

 

Evidencing Tax Compliance should not just be a moral duty but a statutory duty.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/TaxCSR.pdf

[Tony]

Perhaps you are missing the obvious similarities in intention and effect and that we are talking about what should be done through legislation, not what currently can be done within the existing legal framework.

 

Not at all. I simply do not agree with the assumption that government is the best or most efficient way of putting money into peoples pockets. It is a simple fact that creating direct jobs and personal wealth (at all levels) is more effective and efficient than government trying to do it. Even New Labour understood that. Issues of tax avoidance and evasion is a red herring motivated by ideology rather than facts.

 

 

 

 

Edit: I scanned to page two of the report in your link. I can't see the point in wasting any more of my time on it since it contradicts itself and engages in ideology from the start. I agree with the first sentence but not the second. The third is bizarrely and wildly inaccurate and the fourth is utter nonsense.

 

The UK has been in recession, and may well be in recession again soon. Through no fault of its own the income of our government has collapsed whilst its obligations have increased. A gap between government income and expenditure of up to £175 million a year has emerged as a result. This though is not a spending crisis: this is an income crisis.

[Vague_Boy]

Gather together all the tax evading members of our society, tip them upside down and shake their pockets out. Voila... in less than two years, we have no deficit.

 

[a] Are you confusion the defecit (annual overspend) with the national debt?

 

The deficit last year was £163 billion. It will likely be the same this year (i.e, another £163 billion added on). The total estimated to be lost through tax evasion is £15 billion a year (link). The total lost through all fraud is £30 billion a year (same link).

 

At a time when the annual overspend is £163 billion and the total overspend (the national debt) is approaching £800 billion and is likely to reach £1.4 trillion in the next 5 years (link), you can se how your assertion (quoted above) literally doesn't add up.

 

Assuming all tax evasion was eliminated (highly unlikely), that would give us, over two years, a total of around £30 billion. The defect over the same 2 year period would be around £320 billion.

[Wildcat]

Not at all. I simply do not agree with the assumption that government is the best or most efficient way of putting money into peoples pockets. It is a simple fact that creating direct jobs and personal wealth (at all levels) is more effective and efficient than government trying to do it. Even New Labour understood that. Issues of tax avoidance and evasion is a red herring motivated by ideology rather than facts.

 

 

Edit: I scanned to page two of the report in your link. I can't see the point in wasting any more of my time on it.

 

You would see an end to the welfare state then and back to Victorian system of social support through charitable institutions and work houses?

 

Come the first world war when the state of the nation was assessed, it was clear to anyone that that system did not work and that businesses did not distribute their wealth equally or equitably within society.

 

Your position is so obviously wrong, it is an absurdity.

[donkey]

Because they failed to legislate against loans exceeding the value of the security.

 

There's no law against me selling all my household goods and putting the money on a horse. Nonetheless, I am still able to deduce that this would not be a wise course of action. Since when have the Masters of the Universe needed their hands holding while they cross the road?