I1L2T3 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Isn't that because the UK has a good credit rating, and the reason that the UK has a good credit rating is because it is reducing it's deficit? Ergo... What's it got to do with the government? Why is it their job to "invest"? Isn't that what got us into this sovereign debt mess in the first place? A couple of points. The Uk has committed to reducing the deficit. Moodys has pointed out that there is a risk of undershooting targets. If this happens then you are right it will affect borrowing conditions. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the role of government. But I would ask you if you think 'credit easing' is a good idea. After all logically it is the govt investing directly into the economy. As for infrastructure if it was completely left in private hands it would probably not develop in a way that met national long term goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 I'm afraid it is you that is posting absolute drivel. I have highlighted several istances where very rich people have moved away from the UK simply because of increased taxation. Whilst some might say good ridance it doesn't alter the fact that these people paid £millions in UK taxes which they don't any more. Worse still is the thousands of jobs that these people created in the UK have moved along with them. I keep asking people how they would force/encourage Jenson Button to pay his taxes in the UK? I have yet to receive an answer. No one is going to relocate a major business to the UK if it is commercially advantageous for them in a different country. That is the issue that needs to be addressed. If somebody legally extracts wealth from the UK, then moves their company abroad to avoid paying UK tax, they do no favours to the UK people. If somebody creates wealth in the UK, and moves their company abroad to avoid paying UK tax, it's debatable. If somebody creates wealth in the UK and pays UK taxes, then they are the ones we should care about. They benefit the UK enormously. Unfortunately, people can use a foreign company to trade in the UK and extract wealth from the UK. This is what needs to be addressed. Tax ain't a problem for a capitalist. If it's productive and profitable. Then you go for it. No profit - no need to pay tax. Profit - pay tax at the same rate as everyone else - equal playing field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 But since different countries have different tax regimes it's not a level playing field, capitalists will seek to maximise the profit after tax by choosing a way of doing business that minimises the amount of tax they pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 If somebody legally extracts wealth from the UK, then moves their company abroad to avoid paying UK tax, they do no favours to the UK people. If somebody creates wealth in the UK, and moves their company abroad to avoid paying UK tax, it's debatable. No, it's just evasion. You need to understand that the point, time and party at which that wealth is actually created is all that really matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 Maybe people with higher incomes should pay more for bread and milk too? And more for their fuel? And more for their newspapers? Hell, let's just take 99% of their money off them and give it to the under-achievers who complain they don't get paid enough or their rent is too high Bad argument. Your trying to suggest communism, when I suggested nothing of the sort. One has to consider what people NEED to live. Nobody should have to pay tax on acquiring those things. Nobody should be forced to spend a disproportionate amount of income on acquiring those things. So we should introduce sensible tax thresholds based upon family sizes/units taking these costs into account. (And a negative income tax/basic income/benefits for the poorest). Then levy taxes upon income through labour, profit, rent seeking, usury. The lowest of them taxes being upon labour, as it is labour, particularly the efficient use of labour that creates wealth. With regards to 'rent', rent is controlled and set by the government. It ain't a free market. Housing benefit props up rents. Housing association and council rents are set by the government, and have been forced to rise above inflation for well over a decade (a decade when people had to begin to RELY on debt to live), wages haven't kept up. Planning permission is costly and denied, there are not enough places for people to place caravans etc. The poorest are being forced to rent, and through high rents they are being forced to effectively work for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
percy filth Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 It wasn't me who said all our problems were clearly due to taxing the wealthy too much. You said it. And you were wrong. Go for a walk or something and clear your head. I said our problems were down to a government spending too much and having to tax people to pay for it. Companies and individuals by and large go into business to make money, not to fund the lifestyles of others. You cannot expect anyone to risk their capital if their expectation is that the government will dig too deeply into the rewards. But I see that you have already lost the argument and are resorting to insults. It seems common with people of your political persuasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 One has to consider what people NEED to live. Nobody should have to pay tax on acquiring those things. Nobody should be forced to spend a disproportionate amount of income on acquiring those things. Why shouldn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 Why shouldn't they? Because it's unfair to force people to pay more than they should for something they require to live. Land as the most obvious example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Why should people get to spend more on fags, booze and porn than the roof over their heads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 Why should people get to spend more on fags, booze and porn than the roof over their heads? Why should people be forced to spend more on fags then they need to... Why should people be forced to spend more on booze than they need to... Why should people be forced to spend more on porn than they need to... Why should people be forced to spend more on a roof over their heads than they need to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.