Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Couldn't agree more with that bit.
Spend it on the NHS, spend it on assisting University Education, spend it on building more social housing, spend it on providing better care for the elderly ( they're not all rich and Tories, you know, Dev ) or spend it on providing some sort of incentive to employers to give people better employment T&Cs than Zero Hour Contracts, or give more to countries in Africa, who desperately need it.
But giving AID to countries like China and India doesn't fit with most peoples' idea of money well spent.
of course there's not. Most are ignorant. Same thing can be said at the many Maltese working class (some within my own family) who voted against pensions and in favour to our version of the Tory party because the church told them to do so. These are the sort of people Im bashing.
a) You aren't taxing everyone. You're taxing people who're earning enough to comfortably and progressively pay it off
b) Yes it is a double taxation. As is every other tax imaginable. As a company owner I pay corporation tax, NI, Income tax, VAT, fuel taxes... Everything at a minimum is a double taxation.
c) I'm not saying you must be stupid if you don't agree. I'm suggesting that people who support the policy at least be open about the fact that statistically it is a policy that helps the richer members of society at the expense of the poorer members of society.
I guess this is the biggest problem with the inane Tory campaign. If you can't explain to the electorate that another party is being blatantly dishonesty in firstly the bleak reality of taxing the rich to a greater extent and secondly the actual reality that the poor will be footing the bill... what hope is there.
Personally abolishing student fee's would be great for myself. My future children won't have to pay for it and I won't be the one footing a proportional amount of the bill as I'm firmly in the middle class. However I think it's a sad state of affairs that the youth vote has gotten behind this policy in the guise of it being a progressive policy to help everyone in society. When in reality the statistics show it's a regressive, sinister policy whereby the poor in society end up footing the bill for people who're the actual beneficiaries of the policy and also financially far more able to pay.
The problem is the statistics show this isn't happening. By the time the poorer people in society tend to reach 16 they don't have the abilities to succeed in higher education. If you want to encourage people to better themselves then these tens of billions should be invested in primary/secondary school education in deprived area's. Spend the money actually giving these people the opportunities in the first place, rather than saying you'll pay for something that isn't attainable.
In terms of the allocation of funds it's a somewhat pointless argument. I'd like to a freer society whereby Government spending is slashed considerably across the board in favour of protecting the poor and taxing the rich, but allowing them to spend their money more freely. For example if anyone earning more than a certain amount was exempt from NHS services, then the NHS would have much less pressure and the people earning more would just ensure they had private health insurance. Likewise if anyone earning more than a certain amount was exempt from free state education the pressures on free education would be much reduced and again the richest would just send their children to private schools.
My view is Government spending should be much, much lower in favour of allowing people to spend their own money. People tend to spend money far more efficiently than the Government.
I'd prefer the Government give me a £15k cut in my current taxation levels and as an individual give me the freedom to choose my own Healthcare, Children's education, Charities I donate to, how much of a pay-rise to give my staff, what car to buy etcetc. Rather than them forcibly take as much of my income as they possibly can and then by restricting my personal liberties - force me to accept whatever they deem to be acceptable. Tell me what Hospital I must go to, what School my children must attend, what car I'm allowed to buy, how far I'm allowed to travel.
Excess taxation in my view is the most liberty-restricting facets of modern Government. You have countries wanting to spend more and more of your money which eventually means you have very little left and they're telling you exactly how to spend every single penny.
Again it isn't debt in the traditional sense. If they never earn a salary that allows them to pay it off it goes unpaid and eventually is written off so essentially the Government pay.
I'm unaware of the link between poverty and mental health, but believe we need progressive policies across the board. Any policy that takes from the poor to pay for a service enjoyed mostly by the wealthy seems a bizarre policy in my view - you may as well just reduce the higher tax rate to 20% if you want to give a tax break to the middle classes.
You're in favour of a US style liberal economy while Im more keen to a Swedish like economy, which is fair enough. I think that the poor are better off with the latter then the former.
So you're a right winger who would be happier in America. Fair enough.
Anyway....Back to BREXIT.
Anyone here got any idea why the UK should not have or could not have a similar DCFTA with the EU as the Ukraine now has ?
It's almost full membership status but without the annual fees and open borders.
Seems to me that should keep both sides very happy.
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/ukraine/index_en.htm
Anyone here got any idea why the UK should not have or could not have a similar DCFTA with the EU as the Ukraine now has ?
It's almost full membership status but without the annual fees and open borders.
Seems to me that should keep both sides very happy.
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/ukraine/index_en.htm
Wasn't set up for the Ukraine as a step towards full membership back in 2014 before Farage's mate Putin stirred the pot? Not sure why the EU countries would want the UK to get full membership status minus annual fees and open borders.
You are not but you know the yoof of today have to pigeon hole everyone and everything otherwise it fecks with their heads.
As you said in an earlier post the old grants system helped a lot of people get a university education. 1960s UK set the ball rolling in many areas, only for Thatcherism to try to return things to the past. Poor woman, she wanted to create a society of people like her father and created one for people like her son
Don't get me started on Thatcher, that cow was an insane class warrior who was hell bent on returning the lower classes to their place, and didn't care how much of the country's wealth and potential she had to waste, just so long as she did.
As for education, wasn't just grants, there was a huge expansion in 6th form provision which was needed to prepare for university, and with the removal of the 11-plus (in most of the country) then ordinary families could see the path for their kids was clear, there was a sea change in attitude to education.
I thought Trump was Farage's mate - surely he isn't mates with both of them ?
I thought that this was what the EU belatedly set up with Ukraine AFTER it became evident that there were too many problems ( too many anti-EU ethnic Russians in the Ukraine...Dutch veto on Full Membership...etc ) but which provides the EU and Ukraine with Tariff Free Trade.
I'll be provocative - there is absolutely no reason why a simlar DCFTA can't be a workable and more quickly implemented solution UNLESS the EU wants to be vindictive and frighten off any other countries which just might be thinking about leaving.
It's actually far from full membership. You might want to read in a bit more carefully. Also, it entails close alignment of ukrainian and european regulatory legislation, i.e. all those dreaded Brussels regulations the Brexit campaign was running against, taking back control and all that.
That's assuming these countries are building space programs just for the sake of it.
75% + of launches these days are for commercial reasons:
Communications satellites, weather satellites, other earth observation, navigation, satellite TV, remote sensing and even space tourism now. These are satellites launched to make money. A company (let's call them BSkyB pays a launch company to put a satellite into space).
In addition to that, you can add military reasons (spy satellites), and technology research projects, and it's clear, the only people that benefit from Space Development are the people on the ground.
Most of India's satellite launched in 2016 were for the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System. This isn't actually for commercial reasons, but for defensive ones:
You might think it's a waste of money to give India money when they can afford Satellite launches, but would you ask them to do away with their army too? Previously they have launched a Digital Multimedia Broadcasting Satellites and communication satellites (2) (3).
Saying that we shouldn't give money to India because they have a space program goes back to outdated ideas. If you believe in capitalism, and reducing poverty through it, then it should be said that the Spacial frontier today is a commercial one. BSkyB/Iridium/Facebook are paying companies to put their equipment into space. No one is making them.
I have read it - almost 20 times during the past 12 months.
It is the sort of 'Full-ish Membership' that the UK is looking for and which, remember, is already fully aligned with EU regulations.
The DCFTA provides Tariff Free, open access to the Ukranian market for EU members - which the UK is happy to go along with.
The ECJ has no jurisdiction in Ukraine.
And it does not permit Open Borders into the EU for Ukranians ( now I wonder why ? ) and EU citizens into the Ukraine.
More or less sums up everything the UK wants and the reason for BREXIT, and, I assume, is everything the EU wants apart from wanting the UK's money.
Well given a large part of the debate in the US right now is how close Trump and Putin are, it wouldn't be surprising to suggest Farage is the horrible puny wannabe friend to either of them. I presume you personally have more than one friend.
It was set up to enable Ukraine and the likes of Moldova and Georgia time to meet with EU criteria with the long term aim of EU membership for all. So the goals are slightly different when it comes to the UK.
I think your provacative reasoning is right. The EU does want to frighten other countries from leaving so I'm not sure a deal like this would be workable unless the UK is prepared to pay.
Rich, poor, middle class
I'll repeat since you are having a hard time with this, they all get richer, they all pay more taxes therefore the poorer are helped whether they've been to Uni or not.
A better tax on the wealthy would be ending the charitable status of private schools and start charging VAT on those fees
Last edited:
Easy
Because the EU would never give us that deal.
If you are looking at Ukraine, or Turkey, as an example of what the EU is willing to give us, then you are looking at a fantasy. The EU doesn't want Turkish or Ukrainian citizens in the EU (yet), and not enough people in the EU wants work there (yet).
How would closing immigration to the UK, but allowing Single Market access benefit the citizens of Europe in the same way?
I don't think we need to discuss China, no ?
And India ? I'd argue that any country which can afford its own Space Programme AND its own Nuclear Weapons Programme does not need financial help.
Practical help - like the UK actually building schools / hospitals / infrastructure / etc - I'have no problem with.
Ukraine is a country are seen as a victim of a powerful aggressor whose stealing land from them. The uk left the EU out of its own free will + it never stopped insulting Europe. Why on earth should they be treated the same way? Its like Canada asked the US to give it full access to the Marshall Aid
India is a huge country. 1.3 billion people. Combine the EU, USA and Brazil, and we're in the right ball park.
Just because some areas of India have a functioning Space and Nuclear programme, does not mean other areas aren't in need of financial aid (although I don't want to go so far as to say something insulting).
Even the USA, the richest country in the world, has crippling poverty in places (although how that is measured will vary). Trailer park, inner-city slums, gang, etc. Now the USA don't "need our help", but they do have fundamental problems that are extremely difficult to address.
You talk a good game but that's waffle. Price is dictated by cost and competition. You cant cost in corporation tax, it's not direct. If you raise your price to give yourself more profit the competition will undercut you.
No....The EU was flashing its fanny at Ukraine long before Putin got involved.
That is what gave Putin an excuse to invade, claiming he had to protect the ethnic Russians who didn't want to be taken into the EU against their will.
Russia's bullying (which the UK agreed with the EU to stand against) started long before the invasion. Also note that
http://uk.businessinsider.com/britain-ukraine-plus-brexit-deal-2017-1?r=UK&IR=T
"The agreement with the Ukraine is unlikely to satisfy the United Kingdom as regards the scope of trade liberalisation because it contains numerous restrictions on market access particularly for cross-border services. The United Kingdom will probably require better access to the EU internal market, primarily in the interests of the British finance industry," the report notes.
So basically the UK will need to ask for more than what Ukraine got. I dont think the EU will be happy to grant that, not without the UK paying alot of £££ in the EU budget or/and accepting freedom of movement. There again, Global Britain can live without preferential treatment with Europe right? That's what the likes of UKIP said.
Last edited:
The American system is an awful example of a liberal economy in truth. The corruption at the top of the Government ends up with numerous "programs" that are bad for the economy, don't help the people they're supposed to and end up perpetually being funded to placate vested interests. Likewise Federal and State lobbyists have far too much power in influencing their economy, which in turn restricts freedom.
I'm neither left or right wing. One of the most left wing policies imaginable is a basic income for the poorest in society which I am in favour of. A gradual decrease of public spending in favour of gradually giving more and more money to the poorest as a universal income would give them greater freedom, greater opportunities and would limit and in a perfect world eventually eradicate Government waste.
Government spending in 2009, prior to the mislabeled "austerity" measures was £634b, compared with over £760b in 2017. That's an increase of £126b or c. 2.5% per year. If we'd have kept spending at £634b think of what we'd be able to do for the the poorest 25% of men, women and children... They could have a universal basic income of £7,750 on top of benefits they already receive (although I'd amalgamate them together for a much higher basic income).
Currently the top 20% of all earners receive an average of c. £8,500 in benefits from the State, compared to the bottom 20% receiving £15,500. To me that's an absurd situation. The top 20% need no real help from the State. If we could realign this so the top 20% got a nice tax break and the bottom 20% received a little more then everyone wins in my view. Especially as the inefficiencies of Government and middle management is currently taking a slice of the cake.
When you think about Government spending to population it really is ridiculous the situation we're in. Spending this year will top £760b on 65m people. Do the Maths as to how much that means our Government is spending per person - well over £11,500 per person. The value for money is absolutely dreadful.
If these taxes weren't avoidable, which they obviously are; then of course companies will take them into account. If the Government introduces a £15 minimum wage, what do you think the first thing every company will do? Increase prices to take this into account. If you feel that the collection of company owners in the UK will be happy reducing their salary then you're very much mistaken.
The statistics show that abolishing University tuition fee's will not increase the amount of people going to University or the amount of jobs that are available that require University education. Therefore you are incorrect when you say everyone gets richer.
Likewise the poorest in society generally aren't in a position to benefit for University education, so again they don't get richer. They get poorer as shit falls downwards so they end up paying for a service that they will not use. A much better idea is to put this money into Primary/Secondary School education in the poorest area's to give them a better chance.
Can you please name me a country who uses your sort of reasoning? That would be easier for people like myself to understand exactly what you have in mind
I don't see that happening in neither Malta nor Sweden (I never lived in Sweden but I got friends from Sweden who agrees with me on that regard)
Second time I'm having to repeat myself with you. Wages are a cost. They are factored into the price of the product. Coporation tax is paid on profit. This is not a cost. This can't be added to the price of the product because of competition.
It doesn't take a genius to figure that more people will take up a higher education if they didn't have to pay for it
Russia tries to bully every one of its former USSR members.
The EU either didn't know, didn't realise or simply chose to ignore what Putin's reaction was going to be.
As for the rest of your comment - precisely why does the UK not deserve, at least, a simliar trading status as Ukraine ?
I know - because....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/uk-must-pay-price-for-brexit-says-francois-hollande
The EU is slowly building its reputation as a big player at world's stage. It wasn't the case in the past when it acted as the US backing vocalist but now things are changing
Regarding the rest of your comment - If Scotland decides to leave the UK do you think that Westminster would provide it with a similar/better deal then it already has? Before you answer that, imagine if before that deal was signed, Nicole Sturgeon decides to compare the UK with a nazi regime and one of her MPs spent years insulting the UK in all possible ways.
Ukraine is perceived as a victim from an EU whose eager to become a big player as the US is and must therefore help potential allies in need. The UK is perceived as a competitor and in some ways as a turncloak.
The saddest thing about Brexit, is the rhetoric used by the Conservative party was complete guff. They never used the tools given to them to curb immigration, because they didn't want to.
Tool 1 - Changes to taxation.
I've mentioned this many times on here, but simply changing taxation could have cut immigration fairly drastically. They actually made it worse, by increasing the 'take home pay' from low paying jobs (not that I am against that).
Now there are sensible reasons not to have implemented this, you can question whether it's fair, whether it will increase poverty, how it will affect returning ex-pats and why the government should have to resort to such backwards taxation anyway... but it was a tool that no government chose to use to curb immigration.
And actually, when the worst part if EU immigration is the reduction in low-skilled wages over time, this would have reversed that.
Tool 2 - Ask migrants without a job for three months to leave.
David Cameron claimed he'd got a concession that allowed migrants that haven't had a job here for 6 months to be asked to leave. But we already had that right.
Tool 3 - Ask migrants to register with the local government,
Pretty much every other country requires you to register with the local government.
Tool 4 - Ask everyone to get Health Insurance (UK Citz would use the NHS)
A bit of a weird one. Healthcare is entirely devolved to the countries in question. This goes against the whole point of the NHS, but...
You are allowed to require people working in the UK to have private Health Insurance. You could also give everyone who has been in the UK for over a year "NHS Health Insurance." EU migrants would still get this NHS Health Insurance after a year, but would need to get their own Health Insurance to start with...
There are any number of tools available. And yet, the Conservative government didn't choose to use any of them. Why? Because Immigration is good for the UK.
It's all bollocks.
Tool 1 - Changes to taxation.
I've mentioned this many times on here, but simply changing taxation could have cut immigration fairly drastically. They actually made it worse, by increasing the 'take home pay' from low paying jobs (not that I am against that).
https://infacts.org/government-use-taxation-restrict-immigration/
Now there are sensible reasons not to have implemented this, you can question whether it's fair, whether it will increase poverty, how it will affect returning ex-pats and why the government should have to resort to such backwards taxation anyway... but it was a tool that no government chose to use to curb immigration.
And actually, when the worst part if EU immigration is the reduction in low-skilled wages over time, this would have reversed that.
Tool 2 - Ask migrants without a job for three months to leave.
David Cameron claimed he'd got a concession that allowed migrants that haven't had a job here for 6 months to be asked to leave. But we already had that right.
And we (Theresa May/David Cameron) just didn't use it.
Tool 3 - Ask migrants to register with the local government,
Pretty much every other country requires you to register with the local government.
Tool 4 - Ask everyone to get Health Insurance (UK Citz would use the NHS)
A bit of a weird one. Healthcare is entirely devolved to the countries in question. This goes against the whole point of the NHS, but...
You are allowed to require people working in the UK to have private Health Insurance. You could also give everyone who has been in the UK for over a year "NHS Health Insurance." EU migrants would still get this NHS Health Insurance after a year, but would need to get their own Health Insurance to start with...
There are any number of tools available. And yet, the Conservative government didn't choose to use any of them. Why? Because Immigration is good for the UK.
It's all bollocks.
Last edited:
In other words you've bought into a form of well intentioned Libertarianism. The only problem with which is that it doesn't actually work. It doesn't work because the needs of individuals can be wildly different due to a whole range of reasons, and can fluctuate wildly over time.
Let's take your example of the amount of government spending on average spent on each person. Now the key word there is average. One person might require a huge amount of home care, or have a lot of kids that require more child benefit, or x, or y, or z. Now you've just handed that person a lump sum and said there you go, better hope you don't need more help than that because otherwise you're stuffed. Plus you've just handed it to people who didn't actually need it in the first place.
Oh and more than that, these things people need will no long have a government department arranging the help and using mass purchasing power or whatever, instead each person will just have to get on with it and provide for themselves using the cash given. They might be sick, or desperately trying to raise a houseful of kids, or look after a terminally ill family member, but they've had their money and they'll just have to make their own arrangements, right?
There's actually some good arguments for a universal basic income, but one that just replaces government spending would be extremely damaging to a huge number of people.
Regarding the rest of your comment - If Scotland decides to leave the UK do you think that Westminster would provide it with a similar/better deal then it already has? Before you answer that, imagine if before that deal was signed, Nicole Sturgeon decides to compare the UK with a nazi regime and one of her MPs spent years insulting the UK in all possible ways.
Her and Mr MacWobbly have had a whole career blaming England for everything - and there's unlikley to be any deal to sign now, so we'll never know.
But you have a point - no, the rest of the UK would probably tell Scotland ' It's what you wanted '....
Her and Mr MacWobbly have had a whole career blaming England for everything - and there's unlikley to be any deal to sign now, so we'll never know.
But you have a point - no, the rest of the UK would probably tell Scotland ' It's what you wanted '....
That what the UK did with the EU and that's the same reaction I expect (not want) the EU to have with the UK. Ultimately we're talking here about human beings (UK politicians, EU politicians etc) who have the tendency to allow emotions getting the better of them. In 5-10 years time things will probably cool down, the current politicians would not be in Westminster/Brussels anymore and the time will be ripe for both parties to sit around the negotiating table and act like mature people. However, I cant see such thing happening soon.
Also note that while I love the Scots, I don't think its fair for Scotland to have one foot inside the EU and another foot inside Brexit UK.
I used a simple example. Naturally there would be a degree of banding in terms of how the basic income would be distributed. Almost a negative taxation if you will, which would be banded just like positive taxation is banded.
Again I didn't say it is completely replacing all public spending - I said returning to merely 2009 levels of spending would allow us to provide the poorest a basic income at a level similar to the £7,750 stated previously. People would still have access to the public services, they'd just be curtailed to cater for the poor, rather than for everyone which naturally includes the wealthy and very wealthy.
In terms of the economies of scale you're talking about these are more than gobbled up by Government inefficiencies and competition, so people would be guaranteed to see a saving.
I think Hong Kong did exceptionally well 1970 - 1997 with this kind of model, before they were "returned" to Chinese sovereignty. They saw incredibly high GDP growth fueled by a low tax economy. They have gone from a poor, irrelevant country to one whose GDP per capita is among the highest in the world. Much higher than almost any non-oil fueled country in the world, including the US, UK, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Canada, France, Belgium, Austria etc. Their taxation level to GDP ratio is 13% for example, compared with the UK around 35%.
Don't assume this is me saying Hong Kong is a paragon of virtue (certainly now that they have Chinese involvement). It's a far "younger" economy where such rapid growth has caused it's own problems. They've kept taxation very low in order to fuel further rapid economic growth; with the view that a strong economy is better for everyone.
Their latest budget shows a large budget surplus of over £9b with fiscal reserves surpassing £100b on a GDP. This is on a GDP level around 12% that of the UK (so the surplus for comparison would be around £75b with fiscal reserves of £833b).
Can you imagine how fantastic it would be to have a fiscal reserve of £833b, rather than a debt of £1.56 trillion? Instead of a £43b annual interest bill we'd have interest receipts of over £20b. This additional c. £65b per year is more than our total current spend on our Education, Police, Fire & Legal system combined!
If you genuinely believe that increasing corporation tax doesn't change people's behavior then there's no point discussing the issue further. Put it this way - the largest companies that I know firstly decide what they want to pay in corporation tax; then they work backwards as to what to declare to make this a reality.
If the Government found a way of changing how companies announce their profits then the same companies would find a way around this to allow their owners to earn the same net income. The wealthiest and most powerful people in society aren't going to allow a Government policy to hit them in their pockets. In fact I'd say pissing them off would have the reverse effect.
You're shifting the argument because you were wrong on the original point. You decided a company can pass on the 'cost' of corporation tax to the consumer to which I showed they can't. You've now decided to make this an argument about tax dodging as you have no answer to the first point.
Just because they dodge it doesn't mean you give in to it. Keep simplifying the tax code, keep forcing greater transparency and you'll get them eventually
finneh said:
Based on what exactly? Every Libertarian is convinced government is implicitly wasteful, yet in the main example we have, healthcare, the UK spends considerably less than the free market driven approach taken by America and with considerably better coverage and outcomes in most areas.
You're plain wrong.
Insurance Premium Tax has increased from 5% to 10% over the last few years. Do you know what has happened to insurance premiums? They've increased by exactly the same amount.
Not a single insurance company has "swallowed" these increases... They've merely passed them straight on to their customers - businesses and consumers alike.
Again a policy that appeared to be hitting those nasty multi-national insurers who could afford it has actually hit small businesses and the poorest in society who could barely afford their car and home insurance as it was.
Shit flows downwards... Every single time.
Well, tax is a cost of doing business tbf. Companies can and do raise prices. Competition works well in some sectors, eg supermarkets, but there are plenty of things that people don't buy on price, from iPhones to United shirts and Nike trainers.
It might be fairer to have a reduction in Corpn Tax rates and introduce a new Turnover Tax in addition to the Corpn Tax.
That would make tax avoidance for 'those' companies who take the piss ( and we all know who they are ) with clever Transfer Pricing and Internal /IntraGroup charges for things such as Trade Marks, Patents, Corporate Marketing and Advertising, etc, a little more difficult.
That would make tax avoidance for 'those' companies who take the piss ( and we all know who they are ) with clever Transfer Pricing and Internal /IntraGroup charges for things such as Trade Marks, Patents, Corporate Marketing and Advertising, etc, a little more difficult.