- Jul 10, 2003
- 25,903
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10
- Thread starter Rdodge30
- Start date
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,138
So in your system there are no offsets for work items, fuel, charitable donations etc?
Nope.
And tax relief on charitable donations is so messed up.
As soon as you start caveating a simple rubric, it goes to bolleaux. I wrote the design and analysis rubric for a science journal. There were about 7 points. The various vested interested have now caveated it with exceptions and subsections. The result is that people can ignore the rules now and get away with it, while massive loads of extra time and expense is spent (failing in) policing it.
Do you mind me asking, before I respond to that, what you would say the actual aims of taxation are?
Partly because that informs my answer, but mainly because I can't be arsed to write what feels like an A-level economics essay only for you to turn around and say you don't care about whatever I've hung the argument on.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,138
So how far has this gone HWT, certainly an interesting idea. How does it compare in terms of income generation? Have you crunched the numbers?
Taxation is to pay for government spending, shirley?*
Government spending is to secure our borders, secure law and order, and (perhaps) fund a raft of socialist activities like the NHS and a national education system (I am relaxed about those who don't want their taxes paying for other people's health and education, albeit my vote in an election, however - you can guess the rest).
No need to give me an economics lecture because it is doubtful I would accept your basic premises. Just persuade me I am in error. I'm a big old bastard and can take it
*I don't consider taxation to be a tool for levelling up, levelling down, squeezing the rich "till the pips squeak" (look that up if you are too young to remember Denis the Menace), rebalancing society, making things fair, or any of that stuff. I am not a 'standard' lefty. I expect the levying of tax to be fair, however, which is why flat rate income tax (%) makes sense to me.
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
- Jul 10, 2003
- 25,903
When @Two Professors was totally out of his depth, desperate, and had nothing whatsoever to contribute to a thread, he used to get angry and post a screenshot of some obscure whataboutism FROM AN UNNAMED SPOKESPERSON IN A BIG TYPEFACE.
But he wasn't too bright. Just saying
Last edited:
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Sorry mate, I'm confused.When @Two Professors was totally out of his depth, desperate, and had nothing whatsoever to contribute, he used to get angry and post a screenshot of some obscure whataboutism FROM AN UNNAMED SPOKESPERSON IN A BIG TYPEFACE.
But he wasn't too bright. Just saying
Before your third edit, It made sense.
Any ideas?
I am a drug research scientist not an economist, but this is at least 50% a political discussion rather than an economical one. I can tell you that once upon a time university academics managed teaching and assessment and did some research. By the time I got my lectureship in 89, we were up to 40% of employees been administrators and data collectors. This was part of Thatcher's drive to ensure the public get value for money for all that tax spend on higher education. Thirty five years later and we are up to 75% of staff involved in collecting, counting and cataloguing what we researchers/teachers do. It is not efficient. Costs have soared. My job is onerous. I spend 80% of my time box ticking and adhering to best practice in the reporting of assessment and appraisal of the practice of my best practice.
Now, think about our complex tax system. I have not done the calculation to work out how replacing the myriad tax collection, self assessment, benefit offset, universal credit-claiming rubric costs. But only a fule would say it is less than having semi automated flat % system.
I remember when people without internet described online payments as Devil work. Post a cheque. That went well.
Look I don't have all the answers but I recon my plan is 90% of it. But like all radical change, it will be sniffed at. Mocked.
Frankly, If I feel the need to be arsed, I can pay a tax accountant to slash my tax bill. I'm all right, Jack. I'm not struggling. I have no dog in this fight. But I happen to think that people who do have a dog they may have to put down due to lack of funds would benefit from what I suggest.
It won't happen though because, as we can see here on NSC, there is no appetite for it. A shame. Sad, even.
Moving on.....
I do hope it wasn't me that triggered him, Watty. I would be distraught. Sory, I meant DISTRAUGHT.When @Two Professors was totally out of his depth, desperate, and had nothing whatsoever to contribute to a thread, he used to get angry and post a screenshot of some obscure whataboutism FROM AN UNNAMED SPOKESPERSON IN A BIG TYPEFACE.
But he wasn't too bright. Just saying
Oh shit, that's my bluff called. Now I actually have to write a post justifying progressive income tax rates.Taxation is to pay for government spending, shirley?*
Government spending is to secure our borders, secure law and order, and (perhaps) fund a raft of socialist activities like the NHS and a national education system (I am relaxed about those who don't want their taxes paying for other people's health and education, albeit my vote in an election, however - you can guess the rest).
No need to give me an economics lecture because it is doubtful I would accept your basic premises. Just persuade me I am in error. I'm a big old bastard and can take it
*I don't consider taxation to be a tool for levelling up, levelling down, squeezing the rich "till the pips squeak" (look that up if you are too young to remember Denis the Menace), rebalancing society, making things fair, or any of that stuff. I am not a 'standard' lefty. I expect the levying of tax to be fair, however, which is why flat rate income tax (%) makes sense to me.
Erm, I'll write it while I'm on the train tomorrow morning. Promise.
A quick aside from the pips squeak reference - my Nanny (as in my mum's mum) used to semi-regularly bump into Denis Healey in charity shops in Seaford. She'd be looking through whatever tat they had and hear the door go behind her and then hear him chatting to the staff.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,328
well that's where you've gone wrong, because most the tax system is for social and politically engineering. hopelessly idealistic to start with how much we need to spend, then how much we need to raise. reckon even members at Adam Smith Institute would baulk at your vision of an absolute flat tax with zero tiers or allowances. for one thing it probably wouldnt work, you'd have to raise the level quite high. the principle of flater tax is sound, especially to reduce much avoidance and evasion, and we could certainly do with throwing away 90% of the tax code.Taxation is to pay for government spending, shirley?*
Government spending is to secure our borders, secure law and order, and (perhaps) fund a raft of socialist activities like the NHS and a national education system (I am relaxed about those who don't want their taxes paying for other people's health and education, albeit my vote in an election, however - you can guess the rest).
No need to give me an economics lecture because it is doubtful I would accept your basic premises. Just persuade me I am in error. I'm a big old bastard and can take it
*I don't consider taxation to be a tool for levelling up, levelling down, squeezing the rich "till the pips squeak" (look that up if you are too young to remember Denis the Menace), rebalancing society, making things fair, or any of that stuff. I am not a 'standard' lefty. I expect the levying of tax to be fair, however, which is why flat rate income tax (%) makes sense to me.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
It makes sense, but many many people only see headlines, especially when they’re in a large font. They’ve made their mind up and then aren’t prepared to listen to details.I know this will end up as TLR but for those calling out for costed policies, all of this was part of that announcement
This sounds to me like a plan and still has clearwater between this and the tory party.
- Labour has now given costings for setting up a proposed state-owned energy company GB Energy. They say it will cost £8.3bn – previously they'd just said it would be invested in "until it is a self-sustaining entity".
- Labour says its Local Power Plan - to invest in clean energy for local communities - will be £3.3bn of the £8.3bn GB Energy plans - a slight downgrade on previous announcements
- A National Wealth Fund - to back business investment in new technology - will be £7.3bn - rather than the £8.3bn previously announced
- A £500m-a-year fund for clean energy developers to invest in good jobs - the British Jobs Bonus - remains the same
- The party will increase the Windfall tax on oil and gas companies from 75% to 78% and extend it to the end of the next parliament, which they say will raise £10.8bn. Currently the tax is scheduled to end in December 2025.
- Labour has downgraded its Warm Homes Plan to insulate 19 million homes over a decade, instead it will cover up to 5 million homes over five years. Previously the plan had been capped at £6bn a year – now its £6.6bn over five years on top of the government's current commitments.
When money is available green appproaches will be prioritised is quite something. Is it what they originally pledged? No of course it isnt. But the tories have burnt a lot of money in 2.5 years!
Sky had an explainer a few weeks ago showing that 28bn wasnt actually the true figure of an increase and that it was nearer 10bn. That is now down (by my calculations) to 5bn which is still significant.
I rest my case. At what point does badinage turn into stalking? 
That is the case. But I reject it. This is like saying that most of the internet is for wanking over porn. Statistically it is, but I'm not interested. I am interested in making systems work. The fact I have no traction is neither here nor there. This is an abstract conversation. I accept that most people believe in god but I'm buggered if I'm wasting a second thinking the fucker may strike me down because I don't believe in her.
You don't have to put your precious time to waste over me, mate. At some point, on some distant day, you can talk me into a molten pool of foolishness over a couple of pints.Oh shit, that's my bluff called. Now I actually have to write a post justifying progressive income tax rates.
Erm, I'll write it while I'm on the train tomorrow morning. Promise.
A quick aside from the pips squeak reference - my Nanny (as in my mum's mum) used to semi-regularly bump into Denis Healey in charity shops in Seaford. She'd be looking through whatever tat they had and hear the door go behind her and then hear him chatting to the staff.
Top Healey reference. And dispensed with the sort of class and elegance the likes of potGtwat could only dream of.
I bumped into Jim Callaghan in a lift at St Thomas' Hospital 30 years ago. Big fucker. f***ing massive.Anyway,......