and lets not pretend the private companies are running the rail system competently or efficiently unless you're the kind of dense fecker who thinks the replacement bus service is just a little train
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
That's not hiding the cost to the users though is it? There's plenty of companies and rich folk who don't get taxed nearly as hard as they should.
it's not even the highest in living memory holy shit dude stop pulling things out of your arse
40 years at least. But never mind the inaccuracy do you think it should be higher than it is now?
In what fantasy World are the Government competent to run anything at all?
Yes it is. What you're talking about is entirely unrelated. Apart from taxing companies and rich individuals harder, which is a debate on its own, why should that tax money be spent on public transport and not Policing, NHS, universal credit etc. It's still an expenditure on the HMRC.
Some people in this thread have clearly 0 idea how the rail franchising system works. Not surprised in the least.
Privatisation is as much about raising a few quid, and not that much in the case of the railways, as dropping that hot potato and letting some other unfortunate fecker sort it out.
Except it isn't. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. It's up to the Government on what taxes get paid, and where the funds are spent. Labour have said they will use them to re-nationalise the railways, and cut costs to consumers. Such a policy has been successful in other countries. I'm not on about the appropriation of government spending.
It won't work.
significantly, and the labour & snp amendments that passed this week to track tax avoidance will help, and when labour takes charge the likes of phillip green won't be able to continue to rob the country dry
Except it is. We keep going on in circles here. Let's leave it.
Corporation tax is the lowest it's ever been. Meanwhile our schools, police force, hospitals are all under funded.
I think having a healthier, happier, safer and better educated workforce would lead to more investment in the long-run, yeah.
look i know you don't like mad ideas madmike, but the government can spend money on more than one thing
I believe this is correct - they cannot block no deal, it is the default position if transitional arrangements cannot be agreed before the A50 deadline.
We also cannot unilaterally extend A50. I believe that the EU have been telling us throughout that they will agree to extend A50, if (and only if) it is to give us the requisite time to conduct a second referendum (which would have to contain a 'remain' option). What they will not do (so I understand) is extend A50 for a renegotiation of May's deal (and there is no time to renegotiate it from scratch before the current deadline). Given that May is unlikely to be able to get her deal through Parliament, 'no deal' now looks like by far the most likely outcome.
The only way no deal will realistically be prevented is with a second referendum being called in the new year. I don't think any Tory PM will call for a second vote (even staring down the barrel of no deal), so we'd also need a change of government (and Corbyn to be persuaded of the necessity of a referendum). This strikes me as the less likely outcome.
A a rule I am not in favour of nationalisation. But I think the Railways could be worth looking at. For a starters, the notion that the current arrangement promotes competition is a nonsense. You have one company that wins the right to run on one section of the network. How is that competitive? Ok, you say, they could lose the contract to another cheaper bid. But that never seems to happen. The network itself is pretty much state owned. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of 21st century state to not repeat the mistakes of the past and find a funding model that ensures the tax-payer is getting value for money. Lots of modern countries successfully run state owned railways. I just think it would be worth considering.
I thought so too, but with the amount both remain and hard brexit tories have capitulated over the last week they might vote the deal through just to stop a general election.
Agree the first 2 paragraphs but how does a referendum stop a no deal? The offer will still be the same from the EU.
But the system has to be more nuanced than just hiking rates for anyone above £80k. I agree with Philip Green and HIS like, they should be hunted down and made to pay. The same with the likes of Amazon and Starbucks.
I run a Company of 50 people and earn just about 6 figures. It is all PAYE and I do pay a lot of tax - £39k last year. I don't use accountants to do my return. Do you really want the likes of me to pay more?
They would extend A50 to allow us the time to conduct the vote (which would have to include a remain option - thus potentially avoiding Brexit altogether).
labour isn't going to raise income tax to 90% or anything you know, the major tax raise is going to be corporation tax going back to 26% with the overwhelming majority of tax efforts being in tax avoidance
hilarious dude, hilarious
thanks
Extending the A50 is extremely doubtful , but let's say they did.
Then the UK have another vote - Remain or leave win.
Remain - EU27 and UK all have to agree to cancelling A50.
Leave - The same offer is there. No change.
Then what. May as well decide to Remain now.
Then where would be the incentive for anyone to start a business and employ people?
this is a grey area and it's still going through the European courts, the UK might be able to unilaterally revoke A50
You're telling me 'earning just under 6 figures' isn't motivation enough?
But ok if they can do that so they stay, what happens if Leave win again? Then it's no deal.
Bizarely the government doesn't appear to want that right.
yeah but the point is it's all the governments hands, until the UK has left it can use the EU mechanisms as they're intended
Not if the taxation system only allows me to take home as much as an employee. We will all be employees but there will be no businesses.
Karl Marx said:
Since you'll only be taxed at the highest rate on the but above 80000 I find it doubtful that you'd be earning the same as your employees
Yes but we're now talking about simply a choice between remaining per the status quo and falling off the cliff because the safety net has been rejected.
With Brexit round the corner the UK more likely needs to lower corporation tax, rather than hike it, if it wants to retain businesses and share up some of the cost of Brexit that businesses will be burdened with.
Tax avoidance is another matter though and should be hunted down like the devil it is.
Tax avoidance is another matter though and should be hunted down like the devil it is.
You said yes to me paying more. My point is that there comes a point when you destroy aspiration. People that open businesses often risk a lot in the early days. They also stand to lose more if it fails. That is not to diminish the hardship that is generally felt by the employees. But there should be a differential in rewards that recognises those risks. If that differential is eroded then the incentive to take the risk and start a business in the first place diminishes.
But if like, Red Silva up there you are a fan of the workers owning the means of production then fine - but be happy with your commune and don't try and compete with other countries because you will lose.
Of course they (the EU) would agree to extending A50 for a referendum that could potentially return a remain vote - why wouldn't they.
As I said, this (a second referendum) strikes me as a much less likely scenario than crashing out with no deal (which must be odds on at this point).
Possibly but it has to be sorted well before the EU elections in May.
But if leave won again the UK's off the cliff. Like playing russian roulette.
if the aspiration is solely to make more money than other people then i'm completely fine with punitively taxing these people
i have a far less successful business than yours and on the rare occasion that i had projects big enough that i need to hire freelancers, i give them a proportional share of the pay because i'd have to be a real dick to think i earned the money more than they did