economic situation is dire

[Awol]

So if the law was changed to prevent legally acceptable tax avoidance and the Gov borrowed and spent more (the reinvestment you speak of) then all would be well?

I thought the latter was the now discredited policy that Ed Balls apologised for the other day?

Legally acceptable? This is an old chestnut for VT at least about something being legal and being morally acceptable. As a non-UK resident you must benefits from Tax avoidance, while still retaining many rights that normal Tax payers enjoy?

Eh? Why would someone pay tax in a country they are not currently living? I'm not using public services, utilities, etc. The rights I enjoy such as consular assistance are those available to all British citizens, do you think they shouldn't?

BTW I have no problem at alll with closing tax loopholes but to pretend that s a panacea for the UK's financial woes is just plain wrong.

I have no idea why you mention Ed Balls other than maybe this is a deflection attempt, the last time I looked Ed Balls was not responsible for the taxes and their avoidance in the country, that fell to people like Gideon, Cameron and his cronies

The point about Balls had nothing to with tax avoidance (which in 13 years Labour chose not to address) but with the 'reinvestment' argument you make, i.e. borrow and spend like it never has to be paid back. That argument has been lost and even Labour have now rejected it -remember Darling also wanted to cut the deficit drastically if they were relected.

The point that you missed through choice or by accident was one hilighted in the right wing media recently about how many jobs had been lost since the recession started and how that could be addressed.

Lower taxes on businesses and indivduals for a start to stimuate growth.

[Risso]

Legally acceptable? This is an old chestnut for VT at least about something being legal and being morally acceptable. As a non-UK resident you must benefits from Tax avoidance, while still retaining many rights that normal Tax payers enjoy? Even Cameron et al in the run up to the last election made (empty) promises about closing loopholes, something they continue to fail spectacularly to address.

There are tax avoidance loopholes being shut all the time, at a far greater rate than happened under the last government, including a major new piece of legislation in December 2010. Just because you are unaware of it, doesn't mean that it isn't happening.

[drat01]

Again AWOL you argument is "Labour this, Labour that", they are not in power, this Gvmt of Cons and LibDems are doing nothing and many are, IMO rightly, saying that the problems this country are facing are worse now. There is little to no direction of real benefits from any of the policies that the Gvmt are forcing through that will benefit the UK in the long term. High VAT, High inflation, Increased Unemployment, Increased Youth unemployment, little / nothing done to address key areas that were promised as part of the election, the list goes on and on.

Again you talk about as though there were / are only two alternatives here, accept the Gvmt massive,harsh (and often idealogical led cuts) or talk about borrowing more. Opponents of the Gvmt, and parts of the Gvmt pre their moment of fame, said that yes cuts were required but at what level and at what speed and severity - and just as importantly in what areas. You ignore that fact though and try to say its a either this or that argument which it clearly isn't

BTW I have no problem at alll with closing tax loopholes but to pretend that s a panacea for the UK's financial woes is just plain wrong.

No one has said that as you well know. Lots of things contribute to recovery plans, and when we are constantly told how we must all do our bit, you can understand the anger and frustration when the wealthy elements are obviously avoiding theirs

[snowychap]

Lower taxes on businesses and indivduals for a start to stimuate growth.

I'd have grave doubts that it would do that, though.

It may provide a bit of an impetus to consumer spending but isn't one of the problems with our economy (like other western economies) that business investment has been on the wane for a fairly long time (i.e. predating any financial/banking crisis and recession)?

To a degree, an impetus in consumer spending may well be a kind of kicking the can down the road, might it not?

[Risso]

No one has said that as you well know. Lots of things contribute to recovery plans, and when we are constantly told how we must all do our bit, you can understand the anger and frustration when the wealthy elements are obviously avoiding theirs

There will always be ways to pay less tax while there are jurisdictions that offer lower rates. However, it's more difficult under this government than it was under the last, as they are getting very tough with aggressive tax avoidance schemes. Working in the IOM there have been several big casualties amongst those sorts of firms, and those that are left are fighting over a much smaller market.

[peterms]

BTW I have no problem at alll with closing tax loopholes but to pretend that s a panacea for the UK's financial woes is just plain wrong.

I agree. It's important not to swallow the notion that it would be ok if we could just raise more tax or cut more spending. It's much more about stimulating economic activity by tackling the real problems - excessive private debt, lack of confidence, lack of demand, and unused resources.

The point about taxdodging is more about fairness, and about alternative choices like making the rest of us pay more or receive less services so that some can escape paying their share. It's not in itself a route to economic salvation.

[Awol]

Again AWOL you argument is "Labour this, Labour that",

No it really isn't but going to the time of posting long replies simply for them to be ignored is a poor use of my lunch break.

Think I'll flick some porn on instead.

Ciao.

[drat01]

No one has said that as you well know. Lots of things contribute to recovery plans, and when we are constantly told how we must all do our bit, you can understand the anger and frustration when the wealthy elements are obviously avoiding theirs

There will always be ways to pay less tax while there are jurisdictions that offer lower rates. However, it's more difficult under this government than it was under the last, as they are getting very tough with aggressive tax avoidance schemes. Working in the IOM there have been several big casualties amongst those sorts of firms, and those that are left are fighting over a much smaller market.

Obviously you work in one of those sectors BUT the media certainly paints a totally different picture, especially when it comes to corporates paying taxes.

This is a brief summary from the Grud of recent stories

Grud

I fail to see where justification for this Gvmt on deliverance of a key policy it promised as part of its manifesto, is "oh it's better than it was under Labour", when the reality is that they are still failing massively to deliver. For me they have failed, continue to fail and I have no belief that they will do anything other than fail to address this. They have no real incentive to succeed IMO

[peterms]

No one has said that as you well know. Lots of things contribute to recovery plans, and when we are constantly told how we must all do our bit, you can understand the anger and frustration when the wealthy elements are obviously avoiding theirs

There will always be ways to pay less tax while there are jurisdictions that offer lower rates. However, it's more difficult under this government than it was under the last, as they are getting very tough with aggressive tax avoidance schemes. Working in the IOM there have been several big casualties amongst those sorts of firms, and those that are left are fighting over a much smaller market.

Much further to go, though. I think it would be interesting to see a similar degree of ferocity against people dodging tax as those practicing benefit scams. Scaled up in proportion to the amounts involved, of course.

[Awol]

Lower taxes on businesses and indivduals for a start to stimuate growth.

I'd have grave doubts that it would do that, though.

It may provide a bit of an impetus to consumer spending but isn't one of the problems with our economy (like other western economies) that business investment has been on the wane for a fairly long time (i.e. predating any financial/banking crisis and recession)?

Why not look at further tax incentives for businesses to take on more people and make it easier to hire and fire - so if the business doesn't benefit proportionally to the increased staffing they can be let go again? That may persuade those who are currently risk averse when it comes to recruitment to take more chances by bringing people on.

To a degree, an impetus in consumer spending may well be a kind of kicking the can down the road, might it not?

It may be kickng the can down the road to a degree but as the economy needs some help in the short term - and policies can be adjusted in the longer term - I can't see very many better ideas doing the rounds, can you?

[drat01]

Why not look at further tax incentives for businesses to take on more people and make it easier to hire and fire -

Eradication of workers rights is NOT a method for economic growth!!

[Awol]

Why not look at further tax incentives for businesses to take on more people and make it easier to hire and fire -

Eradication of workers rights is NOT a method for economic growth!!

Question: Which of the following scenarios would an unemployed individual prefer?

1) A job that doesn't have much security

2) No job

[drat01]

Removal of workers rights are not the key for economic growth!!!

What else would your suggest removal of minimum wage?

Frankly what you are suggesting is obscene IMO.

[Awol]

Removal of workers rights are not the key for economic growth!!!

Question: Which of the following scenarios would an unemployed individual prefer?

1) A job that doesn't have much security

2) No job

[mjmooney]

Removal of workers rights are not the key for economic growth!!!

Question: Which of the following scenarios would an unemployed individual prefer?

1) A job that doesn't have much security

2) No job

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Just answer yes or no.

[peterms]

Why not look at further tax incentives for businesses to take on more people and make it easier to hire and fire - so if the business doesn't benefit proportionally to the increased staffing they can be let go again?

That's already the case. One of the classic grounds for making redundancies is that the requirement for a particular function or activity (and the associated staffing) has diminished. It has always been recognised as a fair and proper reason for reducing staffing, and employment law reflects this.

[Awol]

Removal of workers rights are not the key for economic growth!!!

Question: Which of the following scenarios would an unemployed individual prefer?

1) A job that doesn't have much security

2) No job

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Just answer yes or no.

Yes.

[drat01]

If that is the type of economy and world that the UK should aspire in your view to then so be it, luckily changes in employment laws have resulted in many in the UK not having to doff their caps to their lords. If you honestly think that making it easier to fire people,(when the reality in the UK is that it's still fairly simple compared to a lot of other western countries) will stimulate job creation then your thinking is way beyond anything I could / would find acceptable.

Your question is not answerable because of that

[drat01]

Some more sobering statistics showing that this Gvmt does not have a grip on the economics of the situation

Unemployment rose by 80,000 to 2.51 million – the biggest rise since August 2009, when we were still in recession.

The number of unemployed women is now at its highest level since 1988.

One in five young people aged between 16 and 24 is now out of work.

The number of vacancies fell once more and there are now 5.5 unemployed people seeking every available job in the UK.

Average earnings (including bonuses) rose by only 2.8% on the year before, compared to Retail Price Inflation of 5.2%. Real wages therefore fell by 2.4%. Even those in work have less spending power than a year ago.

The increase in unemployment was driven by a large fall in public sector jobs.

In the three months to June, public sector employment fell by 111,000 whilst private sector jobs grew by only 41,000. In other words the private sector only created 1 job for every 2.7 jobs lost in the public sector.

Crucially the three months to June (that these figures cover) saw the start of the new financial year and the beginnings of real austerity from the government. On these numbers, the government’s cuts agenda is off to a truly awful start

blog

As with all these Blog quotes there will be even more of a bias than the "official" media, but they are sobering figures still

[Awol]

If that is the type of economy and world that the UK should aspire in your view to then so be it, luckily changes in employment laws have resulted in many in the UK not having to doff their caps to their lords. If you honestly think that making it easier to fire people,(when the reality in the UK is that it's still fairly simple compared to a lot of other western countries) will stimulate job creation then your thinking is way beyond anything I could / would find acceptable.

Your question is not answerable because of that

Doffing caps to lords? WTF are you going on about now?!

I was working for a firm (small business) when we were in the teeth of this recession and demand fell off a cliff. We suddenly had staff who simply weren't paying their way and it took months of verbal warnings, then written warnings then finsl written warnings before they could be sacked.

As a result the business went down completely and many more than necessary lost their jobs. If those indviduals could simply have been given four weeks notice then it may not have turned out that way.