Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Tromking

antrobus wrote: »

What the *** are you on about? I have just told you that I would stick " 5p on the basic rate of income tax should raise about £25 billion, and that should be enough to sort out the immediate problems with the NHS, community care, whatever".

What do you propose?

I`ve said repeatedly on this thread and others how I would do it, I'm happy to repeat if you wish.To paraphrase, the UK having corporation tax rates at the G8 average, diverting the £12 billion from the foreign aid budget, restricting the ability of private sector companies to abuse the tax credit system with part time workforces etc.
Apologies for missing your admission that the austerity as implemented by the Tories needs an immediate rise on the basic rate of income tax.

Fella

Tromking wrote: »

I`ve said repeatedly on this thread and others how I would do it, I'm happy to repeat if you wish.To paraphrase, the UK having corporation tax rates at the G8 average, diverting the £12 billion from the foreign aid budget, restricting the ability of private sector companies to abuse the tax credit system with part time workforces etc.

So that's two measures that aren't guaranteed to raise a penny and might actually result in a smaller tax take. And one measure that would raise £12 billion by taking it from the poorest people in the world.

(Not that I would personally have a problem with looking at foreign aid, but then I don't pretend to be a socialist).

Tromking

Fella wrote: »

So that's two measures that aren't guaranteed to raise a penny and might actually result in a smaller tax take. And one measure that would raise £12 billion by taking it from the poorest people in the world.

(Not that I would personally have a problem with looking at foreign aid, but then I don't pretend to be a socialist).

That's always the accusation when someone suggests raises taxes, Oh, people/businesses will just find ways of avoiding paying it. You can't simultaneously warn about Scandinavian levels of public services costing oodles in added taxation and then propagate the myth that in the UK (uniquely?) raising taxes reduces the tax take.
I'm not pretending to be anything, I just think its important to fund public services to a level that makes their long term sustainability assured, either that or 'fess up' to the electorate that your economic plan will severely impact negatively as regards delivery.
Crap public services are a political choice, hence the hung parliament after the General Election.

lisyloo

propagate the myth that in the UK (uniquely?) raising taxes reduces the tax take

Depends how the tax is constructed isn't it.


I'm currently avoiding tax on income, NI, savings, inheritance etc. because I can avoid them.


The comment you quoted was talking about 2 specific measures.

Fella

Tromking wrote: »

That's always the accusation when someone suggests raises taxes, Oh, people/businesses will just find ways of avoiding paying it. You can't simultaneously warn about Scandinavian levels of public services costing oodles in added taxation and then propagate the myth that in the UK (uniquely?) raising taxes reduces the tax take.

You're talking about two different types of taxes. I don't dispute that raising income tax would be likely to raise more money. There is lots to suggest raising corp tax does no such thing. And since the Tories lowered corp taxes revenues are much higher, which further supports that view.

Tromking wrote: »

I'm not pretending to be anything

That wasn't meant as a suggestion you were, merely that I'm not.

Tromking

lisyloo wrote: »

Depends how the tax is constructed isn't it.


I'm currently avoiding tax on income, NI, savings, inheritance etc. because I can avoid them.


The comment you quoted was talking about 2 specific measures.

So UK corporation tax is 'constructed' in such a way that the higher you raise it, the lower the take?
Interesting.

Fella

Tromking wrote: »

So UK corporation tax is 'constructed' in such a way that the higher you raise it, the lower the take?
Interesting.

It's the Laffer Curve.

Set corp tax at zero and you raise nothing.
Set corp tax at 100%, there would be no corporations, and you raise nothing.

Somewhere in-between is the rate that will raise the most tax. Exactly where that is is the subject of endless debate. But nobody genuine thinks there's a simple relationship that higher tax = higher revenue.

Labour suggesting they would raise fortunes through corp tax in their "fully costed manifesto" was one of the more dishonest parts of it. They claimed that the same corp tax raise that would generate tens of billions of extra income in taxes, would have little to no effect on the companies they imposed it on, or the jobs, salaries and pensions of the tens of millions of people who work for those corporations in the UK.

scaredofdebt

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You cannot rectify the mismanagement of the economy over 14 years (1997-2010) in just 7 years.

Brown inherited a small deficit in '97 and turned that to a small surplus by 98/99 and a larger surplus by 00/01

That then went back to a small deficit until 08/09 when the global recession hit.

Or do you blame Labour for the global recession? Arguably Labour could have regulated the banks more harshly but that's easier said than done and the Tories haven't exactly done anything about it have they?

michaels

Tromking wrote: »

That's always the accusation when someone suggests raises taxes, Oh, people/businesses will just find ways of avoiding paying it. You can't simultaneously warn about Scandinavian levels of public services costing oodles in added taxation and then propagate the myth that in the UK (uniquely?) raising taxes reduces the tax take.
I'm not pretending to be anything, I just think its important to fund public services to a level that makes their long term sustainability assured, either that or 'fess up' to the electorate that your economic plan will severely impact negatively as regards delivery.
Crap public services are a political choice, hence the hung parliament after the General Election.

The easiest to increase the tax take from are lower earners on PAYE who can not avoid the tax using any sort of accounting schemes, can not afford to work less and probably don't have the skills to easily work abroad. However such people are more likely to be 'hard working families' and 'just about managing' than they are to be high flying fat cats.

However whoever you take more tax from has less money to spend on consumption, be it purchasing coffees and restaurant meals or new Nissan cars so taking this spending power away from consumers with higher taxes will not be 'painless' to the rest of the economy but will lead to unemployment. If there were a magic solution why would politicians (who like to get elected) not have implemented it?

scaredofdebt

Fella wrote: »

Labour suggesting they would raise fortunes through corp tax in their "fully costed manifesto" was one of the more dishonest parts of it. They claimed that the same corp tax raise that would generate tens of billions of extra income in taxes, would have little to no effect on the companies they imposed it on, or the jobs, salaries and pensions of the tens of millions of people who work for those corporations in the UK.

I believe the figure is around £19 Bn a year, hardly fortunes, that's less than 3% of total government spending.

The Conservatives seem to think we will take more tax by reducing Corporation Tax, which seems unlikely given we already have the lowest rate by quite some margin of all G7 countries. I suppose their theory is it will attract more business/investment and also stimulate growth.

The problem is austerity doesn't stimulate growth and there is some evidence to suggest it stifles growth. So the two policies are at odds.

Ireland has 12.5% CT so we need to reduce to that level if we want to compete with them, purely on the rate.