Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Kentonio 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.
Click to expand...

Do you know the reason that we have competition laws throughout the world that actively break up and discourage monopolies? It's because having one company who has an absolute captive market is bad for competition and awful for the consumer.

Imagine a theoretical scenario whereby Eon bought every other energy supplier in the UK. Then imagine over the next 30 years due to consistent managerial incompetency they end up with ridiculous overheads. However naturally as there is no other competition these overheads are covered annually by increasing the cost of electricity to the consumer. No-one would have a clue whether they were incredibly efficient or not, all we'd know is that the price of energy is going up every year, whilst the service levels were getting worse every year.

Now apply this example to the NHS. Imagine for one second it is a completely mismanaged. How would we know? Well first of all we'd probably see them requesting additional funds from the treasury every year just to keep their heads above water. Secondly whilst receiving these extra funds every single year we'd probably see the service level getting worse every year. Does this sound familiar at all? NHS targets being missed by greater and greater margins whilst spending on the NHS increases every single year.

Healthcare spending:

1985 - £40b or 4% of GDP
1995 - £60b or 5% of GDP
2005 - £110b or 6.5% of GDP
2015 - £145b or over 7.5% of GDP

See the picture? We are hugely increasing spending on healthcare not only in terms of spending but also in terms of spending as a proportion of GDP. At the same time we're seeing declining standards and people lambasting the current Government for "ruining or NHS", despite them throwing record levels of money at the problem both as a % of GDP, per capita, compared to inflation and in pounds and pennies.

Now imagine we kept the NHS exactly as it is but the Government agreed that any private company that matched the current Government costs for procedures, surgeries, checkups etc; they would pay this cost for them. The consumer would have absolute free reign to choose whether to visit a Government health centre or a private one.

I can guarantee the NHS would either become much more efficient as a result of a bit of healthy competition, or it would get closed down due to people preferring a much better private service for the same cost. What would happen to private competitors if they couldn't compete with the NHS? They'd close down.

I literally can see no downside to allowing this consumer freedom. If the NHS is incredibly efficient then it has absolutely nothing to worry about; private sector firms will open up but quickly close down due to an inability to compete and consumers preferring the NHS option. If the NHS isn't then the consumer gets a better service for the same cost.

The US is dreadful in terms of healthcare provision, for a plethora of reasons that aren't related to consumer choice.
 
Full bodied red said:
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.
Click to expand...
A turnover tax would cripple high volume, low margin businesses tbf- turnover is no measure of profitability.
To properly combat corporate tax avoidance, you need full international co-operation and a concerted global push to truly tackle it.
 
finneh said:
Do you know the reason that we have competition laws throughout the world that actively break up and discourage monopolies? It's because having one company who has an absolute captive market is bad for competition and awful for the consumer.
Click to expand...

It's bad for the consumer, because if you control the entire market then after you wipe out your competition you can set prices basically wherever you like. Something that isn't a problem for a public service.

finneh said:
Imagine a theoretical scenario whereby Eon bought every other energy supplier in the UK. Then imagine over the next 30 years due to consistent managerial incompetency they end up with ridiculous overheads. However naturally as there is no other competition these overheads are covered annually by increasing the cost of electricity to the consumer. No-one would have a clue whether they were incredibly efficient or not, all we'd know is that the price of energy is going up every year, whilst the service levels were getting worse every year.

Now apply this example to the NHS. Imagine for one second it is a completely mismanaged. How would we know? Well first of all we'd probably see them requesting additional funds from the treasury every year just to keep the heads above water. Secondly whilst receiving these extra funds every single year we'd probably see the service level getting worse every year. Does this sound familiar at all? NHS targets being missed by greater and greater margins whilst spending on the NHS increases every single year.
Click to expand...

We can measure result with public services on various metrics from waiting times, survival rates etc dependant on the type of service. Instead of switching to a new supplier you're supposed to get off your arse and vote for a party that runs it better. Or go private if you wish, which last I checked wasn't illegal.

finneh said:
Healthcare spending:

1985 - £40b or 4% of GDP
1995 - £60b or 5% of GDP
2005 - £110b or 6.5% of GDP
2015 - £145b or over 7.5% of GDP

See the picture? We are hugely increasing spending on healthcare not only in terms of spending but also in terms of spending as a proportion of GDP. At the same time we're seeing declining standards and people lambasting the current Government for "ruining or NHS", despite them throwing record levels of money at the problem both as a % of GDP, per capita, compared to inflation and in pounds and pennies.
Click to expand...

This is completely disingenuous. The cost is going up because of our aging population, largely because of the NHS doing an excellent job of keeping people alive.

finneh said:
Now imagine we kept the NHS exactly as it is but the Government agreed that any private company that matched the current Government costs for procedures, surgeries, checkups etc; they would pay this cost for them. The consumer would have absolute free reign to choose whether to visit a Government health centre or a private one.

I can guarantee the NHS would either become much more efficient as a result of a bit of healthy competition, or it would get closed down due to people preferring a much better private service for the same cost. What would happen to private competitors if they couldn't compete with the NHS? They'd close down.

I literally can see no downside to allowing this consumer freedom. If the NHS is incredibly efficient then it has absolutely nothing to worry about; private sector firms will open up but quickly close down due to an inability to compete and consumers preferring the NHS option. If the NHS isn't then the consumer gets a better service for the same cost.

The US is dreadful in terms of healthcare provision, for a plethora of reasons that aren't related to consumer choice.
Click to expand...

Jesus fecking christ, its like listening to a right wing American. Healthcare is not about bloody choice, its about sick and vulnerable people getting the help they need to not be sick or die. The idea that any one of us outside the healthcare field have the information to tell which of various healthcare companies provided a better likelihood of us not being sick or dying is nonsensical, all it means is the company with the best advertising and the best salespeople get the customers. And meanwhile the NHS gets bled of desperately needed resources because Johney feckForBrains decided that HealthForYouStars.ltd must be better because they have that nice celebrity on the TV adverts.

Look at bloody America for what 'choice' does, look at the sick people who wake up in hospital to find an insurance company agent badgering them to fill out endless forms, the same companies who will then try with every trick they have to avoid paying out on any particular service the hospital told you you needed. All those people going bankrupt each year, all those people running desperate charity appeals to try and get enough money to save their loved ones.

I don't say this as a personal attack on you, but seriously feck private healthcare and feck anyone who tries to contaminate the UK with it at the expense of the NHS. This is the thickest red line I have ideologically, and I am the moral enemy of anyone who tries to break up the system that has kept my family and friends alive for the last 70+ years.
 
Last edited:
Kentonio said:
It's bad for the consumer, because if you control the entire market then after you wipe out your competition you can set prices basically wherever you like. Something that isn't a problem for a public service.



We can measure result with public services on various metrics from waiting times, survival rates etc dependant on the type of service. Instead of switching to a new supplier you're supposed to get off your arse and vote for a party that runs it better. Or go private if you wish, which last I checked wasn't illegal.



This is completely disingenuous. The cost is going up because of our aging population, largely because of the NHS doing an excellent job of keeping people alive.



I can guarantee the NHS would either become much more efficient as a result of a bit of healthy competition, or it would get closed down due to people preferring a much better private service for the same cost. What would happen to private competitors if they couldn't compete with the NHS? They'd close down.

I literally can see no downside to allowing this consumer freedom. If the NHS is incredibly efficient then it has absolutely nothing to worry about; private sector firms will open up but quickly close down due to an inability to compete and consumers preferring the NHS option. If the NHS isn't then the consumer gets a better service for the same cost.

The US is dreadful in terms of healthcare provision, for a plethora of reasons that aren't related to consumer choice.
Click to expand...

Jesus fecking christ, its like listening to a right wing American. Healthcare is not about bloody choice, its about sick and vulnerable people getting the help they need to not be sick or die. The idea that any one of us outside the healthcare field have the information to tell which of various healthcare companies provided a better likelihood of us not being sick or dying is nonsensical, all it means is the company with the best advertising and the best salespeople get the customers. And meanwhile the NHS gets bled of desperately needed resources because Johney feckForBrains decided that HealthForYouStars.ltd must be better because they have that nice celebrity on the TV adverts.

Look at bloody America for what 'choice' does, look at the sick people who wake up in hospital to find an insurance company agent badgering them to fill out endless forms, the same companies who will then try with every trick they have to avoid paying out on any particular service the hospital told you you needed. All those people going bankrupt each year, all those people running desperate charity appeals to try and get enough money to save their loved ones.

I don't say this as a personal attack on you, but seriously feck private healthcare and feck anyone who tries to contaminate the UK with it at the expense of the NHS. This is the thickest red line I have ideologically, and I am the moral enemy of anyone who tries to break up the system that has kept my family and friends alive for the last 70+ years.[/QUOTE]

:lol:When I read that last quote you messed up a bit, I thought it was you saying it and you'd suddenly done a gigantic May-esque U-turn.
 
Seems we've cluttered the Brexit thread with enough of our opinions. All I will say is that I believe all Governments run it equally awfully and it's a question of who can patch over the inefficiencies with the biggest pot of gold. Naturally though this isn't sustainable even medium term of we're finding out.

The only choice I therefore have to get better healthcare is to go private, which I do. But I'm saddened that not everyone has that same freedom due to their finances.
 
Jippy said:
A turnover tax would cripple high volume, low margin businesses tbf- turnover is no measure of profitability.
To properly combat corporate tax avoidance, you need full international co-operation and a concerted global push to truly tackle it.
Click to expand...


Tell me about it - we're in the airline business, and 2.5% Net Profit, Pre Tax, has us jumping for joy.

But you could tinker with it....

Perhaps allow them to deduct from the total Turnover Tax amount payable in each country, the amount already paid in taxes in that country - such as Real Estate Taxes and/or Employer National Insurance Contributions and/or Fuel Taxes.

We'll never be able to stop companies from moving their Corporation Tax Point to the lowest tax country. But allowing them to shift costs around between subsidiaries to selectivly increase or reduce costs in specific countries can be stopped.

You think Starbucks, for instance, would shut up shop in the UK if the UK set an example along the lines I'm suggesting ?

After all, Income Tax is based on how much individuals earn - irrespective of how much they spend. Let's do something along the same lines for companies.

And as this is supposed to be the BREXIT thread, I'll throw in one word - Luxemburg.
 
Full bodied red said:
Tell me about it - we're in the airline business, and 2.5% Net Profit, Pre Tax, has us jumping for joy.

But you could tinker with it....

Perhaps allow them to deduct from the total Turnover Tax amount payable in each country, the amount already paid in taxes in that country - such as Real Estate Taxes and/or Employer National Insurance Contributions and/or Fuel Taxes.

We'll never be able to stop companies from moving their Corporation Tax Point to the lowest tax country. But allowing them to shift costs around between subsidiaries to selectivly increase or reduce costs in specific countries can be stopped.

You think Starbucks, for instance, would shut up shop in the UK if the UK set an example along the lines I'm suggesting ?

After all, Income Tax is based on how much individuals earn - irrespective of how much they spend. Let's do something along the same lines for companies.

And as this is supposed to be the BREXIT thread, I'll throw in one word - Luxemburg.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of Richard Branson's quote about 'the best way to become a millionaire is to start as a billionaire and launch an airline'.
Car insurance had an average margin of 0.01% a decade ago, from memory. A real volume game.
Agree that creative accounting needs clamped down on.
 
finneh said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again you're missing the point. Insurance premium tax is a cost. It has to be passed on to the consumer. Coporation tax isn't a cost, it's a tax on profit. It can't be passed on because a competitor can come along and undercut you on price
 
finneh said:
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.
Click to expand...

Insurance tax has nothing to do with insurance companies. The tax is compulsory and past straight on to the HM Revenue. To notion that insurance companies should compensate an increase in insurance tax is ludicrous and ignorant!!!!!!
 
It's like VAT, you can't absorb it it's just wacked on the price and payed by the consumer. Coporation tax is paid by the business
 
Rams said:
Insurance tax has nothing to do with insurance companies. The tax is compulsory and past straight on to the HM Revenue. To notion that insurance companies should compensate an increase in insurance tax is ludicrous and ignorant!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Of course they shouldn't... That was my point. The notion that increasing any kind of tax on a business doesn't affect the prices they sell their goods at is ludicrous.
Mozza said:
It's like VAT, you can't absorb it it's just wacked on the price and payed by the consumer. Coporation tax is paid by the business
Click to expand...

The point is that businesses won't absorb any extra cost that you try to levy on them. They will just put it onto the cost of goods.

Whether it's an extra £10k in business rates or an extra £10k in corporation tax, they go straight on to the price of goods in order for a company to maintain is dividend level and share price.
 
finneh said:
Of course they shouldn't... That was my point. The notion that increasing any kind of tax on a business doesn't affect the prices they sell their goods at is ludicrous.


The point is that businesses won't absorb any extra cost that you try to levy on them. They will just put it onto the cost of goods.

Whether it's an extra £10k in business rates or an extra £10k in corporation tax, they go straight on to the price of goods in order for a company to maintain is dividend level and share price.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no evidence that insurance tax has any affect what so ever on insurance premiums. End of!
 
finneh said:
The point is that businesses won't absorb any extra cost that you try to levy on them. They will just put it onto the cost of goods.

Whether it's an extra £10k in business rates or an extra £10k in corporation tax, they go straight on to the price of goods in order for a company to maintain is dividend level and share price.
Click to expand...

Corporation tax is not a cost. It's a tax on profit. VAT, IPT are consumption taxes paid by the consumer. Business rates are a cost, like rent or utilities and are taken off before you calculate profit

Lets work through your thinking. You decide to make an extra 10k in profit to cover the 10k in corporation tax. You're now liable to extra coporation tax on the extra 10k you've made in profit, another £1900. So you decide to charge the consumer another 1900 hundred. Except now you're liable to another 19% on that 1900 hundred. So you wack the price of you goods up another 200. Now your products are uncompetitivly priced so you don't sell anything and you lose your business. Congratulations
 
Mozza said:
Corporation tax is not a cost. It's a tax on profit. VAT, IPT are consumption taxes paid by the consumer. Business rates are a cost, like rent or utilities and are taken off before you calculate profit

Lets work through your thinking. You decide to make an extra 10k in profit to cover the 10k in corporation tax. You're now liable to extra coporation tax on the extra 10k you've made in profit, another £1900. So you decide to charge the consumer another 1900 hundred. Except now you're liable to another 19% on that 1900 hundred. So you wack the price of you goods up another 200. Now your products are uncompetitivly priced so you don't sell anything and you lose your business. Congratulations
Click to expand...

Or to put it another way.

You and your competitors have a profit after tax figure of £10m which allows you to pay a solid dividend to all your shareholders. The Government increases taxation which would mean based on the same year you'd only have a profit after tax figure of £8m and would result in a dividend decrease for all shareholders.

What do you and your competitors do? You either cut costs in the form of redundancies, cut costs in the form of wage stagnation or lower bonuses, but if you naturally feel these would harm the business further (ie result in further reduced profits) then you and all your competitors have a clear choice: increase prices or reduce profitability. Businesses tend not to like the latter so as soon as one increases prices, the rest follow suit.

It's somewhat academic though... The Government will never be able to force business to pay more in corporation tax. A comment I heard this week "we pay corporation tax for no other reason than to illustrate to our suppliers and customers that we're a profitable and solid business".
 
finneh said:
Or to put it another way.

You and your competitors have a profit after tax figure of £10m which allows you to pay a solid dividend to all your shareholders. The Government increases taxation which would mean based on the same year you'd only have a profit after tax figure of £8m and would result in a dividend decrease for all shareholders.

What do you and your competitors do? You either cut costs in the form of redundancies, cut costs in the form of wage stagnation or lower bonuses, but if you naturally feel these would harm the business further (ie result in further reduced profits) then you and all your competitors have a clear choice: increase prices or reduce profitability. Businesses tend not to like the latter so as soon as one increases prices, the rest follow suit.

It's somewhat academic though... The Government will never be able to force business to pay more in corporation tax. A comment I heard this week "we pay corporation tax for no other reason than to illustrate to our suppliers and customers that we're a profitable and solid business".
Click to expand...

If all businesses raise prices in line then they are not competing but acting as a cartel. Time for the competition authority to step in.
 
Is there any chance that the GBP to EUR conversion rate could improve (after another presumably heavy fall in the coming weeks) to be above current levels before the end of August?

If so, is there a reliable source that forecasts these things somewhere?
 
FC Ronaldo said:
Is there any chance that the GBP to EUR conversion rate could improve (after another presumably heavy fall in the coming weeks) to be above current levels before the end of August?
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope not, I have to regularly send money back to the UK, and the shitty pound is a godsend. ;)
 
712 said:
You've repeated the point I made earlier, that the main problem is the government charging too much interest on loans, where I think the fair rate should be the lowest possible rate the government itself pays for borrowing, maybe even less with subsidy.

As for the bolded, this would make sense if fewer people were going to university, but the truth is the opposite, in the UK we are now at 50%.

What I take issue with is people who are telling others they shouldn't go to university because they are poor, which is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

But the poorer your upbringing the less likely you are to take on such debt. The stats are conclusive.

And to whatever number of places we decide there should be no fee and a subsistence level non-means tested grant. Education used to be the great leveler and now it is turning into a great divider.
 
I still think it's ridiculous that our government gave this incredibly complex issue to the people of the UK to vote on.
 
FC Ronaldo said:
Is there any chance that the GBP to EUR conversion rate could improve (after another presumably heavy fall in the coming weeks) to be above current levels before the end of August?

If so, is there a reliable source that forecasts these things somewhere?
Click to expand...

Depends which way the negotiations appear to be heading, if it looks to be tending towards a soft Brexit, the pound will probably improve, if it's a hard Brexit the pound will probably suffer.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
I still think it's ridiculous that our government gave this incredibly complex issue to the people of the UK to vote on.
Click to expand...
It's ridiculous that the Conservative government made a big deal out of immigration for 5 years (and even longer than that), then expected to win a pro-immigration vote.

But yeah, it is ridiculous.
 
Mozza said:
Again you're missing the point. Insurance premium tax is a cost. It has to be passed on to the consumer. Coporation tax isn't a cost, it's a tax on profit. It can't be passed on because a competitor can come along and undercut you on price
Click to expand...
Not possible. The company supposedly undercutting in your example will end up with lower profits and hence a lower roi, it would find hard to raise capital. Sustained under-capitalisation will cause it to either be forced reduce the size of business giving away its customers to the companies charging higher premiums or raise prices in the near term to provide the investors a competitive roi.
 
AshfordLad said:
Not possible. The company supposedly undercutting in your example will end up with lower profits and hence a lower roi, it would find hard to raise capital. Sustained under-capitalisation will cause it to either be forced reduce the size of business giving away its customers to the companies charging higher premiums or raise prices in the near term to provide the investors a competitive roi.
Click to expand...

Lower profit if they sold the same number of units. However being more competitive the cheaper company will out sell their rival, the latter will be the one losing
 
Mozza said:
Lower profit if they sold the same number of units. However being more competitive the cheaper company will out sell their rival, the latter will be the one losing
Click to expand...
For every contract sold the company first needs to have enough capital. Capital which it would not be able to raise given the lower roi.

In the real world (thankfully) the market wouldn't allow such cavalier business policies. No one would want such an entity to be their counterparty not even its customers if they are wise enough anyway.

Most people (and labour/green politicians) dont understand this but there no scope of cutting corners in such services businesses. An increase in tax (if not passed to the customer) will just make them to leave or go bust. At the end of the day capital does not need a passport and will readily go where returns are higher.
 
Last edited:
Liam fox threatening to quit if he doesn't get hard brexit.
This criminal is trying to create a tax haven for all his dodgy friends to park their wealth.
 
Surely Fox quitting should be seen as a benefit, not a risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.