Tarriffs from all sides = Cancel out each other = No Tarrifs.
Removes Liquidity with relatively lower Chaos.
Retains USD as main currency.
US next biggest Tax Haven.
Buy Techs in week.
" FTSE FOR FRIDAY (FTSE:UKX)Â Hopefully, one good thing to come from the "Ant & Dec" debacle shall be the demise of their Australian based 'I'm a Nonentity' program. It's existence colours opinions of an entire fabulous country - hosting F1 ..."
Totally agree. Once the entrepreneurs, scientists and risk takers have realised that the fruits of their efforts have been frowned on and taken away and given away then the incentive is to be the taker. I guess pretty much where we are now.
What the left forget is that the successful also have a social conscience. It's not the sole preserve of the left (if indeed it is at all). Port Sunlight springs to mind. Libraries and public baths of the Victorian elite did great good. Bill Gates seems to be doing a good job.
Maybe Momentum should march to show their appreciation of their benefactors.!!!
Yes frog, not surprised your confused, as I said it cuts both ways and shows the complexity plus gives some thoughtful concepts. That is balance and it's balance that's needed in the taxation system rather than just continually soaking the so called rich. Better to make effective use of the tax take we already have which by the way is at its highest for many a year. Most of us on this board will have contributed another 7.5% tax on the new dividend arrangement unless fortunate enough to have it all in ISA which you mentioned earlier. How far would you like us to go? I do agree with you that the corporations you mention should be stopped avoiding their obligations and that type of taxation I agree with. If they make the sale here, pay the tax here. Anyway, do your bit old chap and take your stocks out of ISA so HMRC can have your contribution will you.
The trouble with Govt spending is ???? IMO its not run like a business. In the latter if sales are low improve performance - increase sales,reduce prices/staffing/premises et al. In the former if performance is not good put up prices. Easy peasy. The customers have to shop here. In a business if staff dont perform then down the road. If that was true in Parliament they could run it from a tea room.
Square this. A friend of mine has over 50 houses that he rents. He has seen a lot but even he was surprised when he realised that one of his tenants. a young lass of 23 was receiving benefits of £26;000 pa. That of course is net.
I have another friend who has worked all her life and one day slipped on a crisp bag and twisted her ankle with disastrous effects. It has affected her spine and she hasnt been able to work since. She has found it almost impossible to receive help.
FIAT, your sentiments are honourable and shared by many. The problem is that for every £1 you raise our stupid governments will spend £1.10. Your populist post also ignores the fact that the poorest in society pay no income tax due to the £11500 personal allowance. The fact is that the richest in society have never contributed more in monetary terms , but it will never be enough. The problem is though is that if you take 100% of a millionaires money away where do you get the money from next year? Why is it that when the population cut off the kings head they soon have a new king?! 1789 king executed, lived in Versailles. 1805 Napoleon Emperor, lived in Versailles! Russian revolution = Stallin! English civil war = Cromwell! The issue is that the richest people are a small minority and thus the majority outnumber them and want what they have. The fact that the majority of millionaires are self made is an inconvenient truth that the populists ignore. Lets just take money off the rich and everything will be great. Actually the rich are tall trees that give and give year after year and employ thousands, just dont tell that queen hating disrespectful nauseating excuse for a human being that liaises with terrorists and currently leads the opposition.
The trouble with government spending is that it is simply spent. It is not invested or saved. The govt can increase taxation of course, you can argue the right amount, but once spent, its gone.
By far the biggest area of govt spending is Social Protection (31%).
The question I have is why are 50% of the population receiving some sort of financial aid. The answer, in most cases is that they are not paid enough.
I cannot see how anyone can run a sensible life on 8 pounds an hour. I'm going to say the minimum wage should be £15 pounds an hour and probably £20 an hour in high rent areas. Yes, companies are going to make less money, the shareholders will no longer receive large dividends, but it will take many millions out of the social protection system. I would also slash corporate tax to zero. No more tax fiddling and it would encourage offshore firms to return here.
Apologies for the provocative post on taxation and thank you for the link to the wikipedia page on the Laffer curve (aptly named?). I have read it and I refreshed my memory. I am puzzled. Did you actually read it?
I quote "In their economics textbook Principles of Economics (7th edition), economists Karl E. Case of Wellesley College and Ray Fair of Yale University stated The Laffer curve shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. Supply-side economists use it to argue that it is possible to generate higher revenues by cutting tax rates, but evidence does not appear to support this.  The lower tax rates by the Reagan administration decreased tax revenues significantly and contributed to the massive increase in federal debt during the 1980s..". On the page there is much more in this vein.
The Laffer Curve is just a theory and one which is not adequately supported by much in the way of evidence, let alone conclusive evidence.
As with all theories produced by the dismal science, much thinking is shaped not by science but by political philosophy. Which explains why Laffer is much loved by wealthy conservatives and, I accept hated by the left. We are still left with the problem of proof.
There are far too many variables not only in human psychology (individualist v communitarian) but also in other factors such as how much money is enough or not enough in practical terms. A 30% tax rate is more onerous for the family on a subsistence income than for a family earning a quarter of a million.
As you will guess I am not on subsistence and I have a comparatively comfortable income, far better than most. I could easily afford more and I would guess that most of you reading this could do so too without incurring any undue hardship.
Everyday we read about and experience the degradation of our public infrastructure whether it is the NHS or our schools. Or maybe our closed libraries or maybe our overstretched police services? Certainly we have completely inadequate care services for the elderly and the disabled. More prosaically I guess you will have all noticed the increasing number of potholes in our streets.
Yes, we all complain about these things and we know that more money has to be found. But still the current political focus is on protecting the accumulated wealth of the already wealthy.
In my view the poorer quartile of the population has already paid its part and it is those in the middle and upper quartiles that need to dig in their pockets and those in the upper quartile most of all. Increases in tax take are needed (IHT, pension contribution tax allowances and ISA allowances?) and the increases do not need to be huge to make a big difference. A clampdown on the use of tax havens and tax avoidance generally would also help as would fair taxation of corporations, including the likes of Apple and Amazon.
I for one am happy to sacrifice a bit more in order to maintain a decent society for all. You will have to decide for yourselves.
"However I would not focus on the 20% tax band but look instead to higher earners who can afford to contribute more."
At the risk of inflaming anti-capitalist sentiment - higher earners already contribute more... a LOT more, both in absolute terms and proportionally, and progressively so as you go up the scale. And the difference is more than many commonly suppose.
All to do with how the tax bands work, the fact you quickly lose your personal allowance once you earn over £100k, etc. It means that (ignoring NI for a moment), if you earn £20k you pay just 9.5% on that total in income tax... if you earn £40k, you pay 14.3%... if you earn £100k, you pay 28.7%... if you earn £200k, you pay 37.9%. And it keeps on going up from there, albeit at a steadily reducing rate of increment.
So someone earning £200k (a healthy wage of course, but not that uncommon in some places) pays exactly 4 times as much tax as someone on £20k - on a proportional basis. In absolute terms, they are paying a full 40x as much in income tax!
Okay, before any hackles get raised, I merely throw this out for a bit of perspective - when someone says higher earners should pay more, the answer is - of course they should. But they already do, and substantially so - the question then being, how much more should they pay, before the issues of societal fairness, disincentive, etc become critical considerations?
FWIW I think the current rates and bands are near enough right, a pretty reasonable balance between affordability and incentive. But I also know a fair few people paying a marginal tax rate of 45% who genuinely say they'd be happy paying a bit more - with 50% generally seen as an upper "acceptable" limit.
You make an excellent point. The NHS is a huge free rider problem, but no politician, not one is willing to state the obvious - the UK cannot afford the NHS in it's current form. Rather they play to the electorate by stating that they will always support the NHS.
I think people should pay for outpatients procedures, blood test, X Rays, all forms of mobility aids, supply their own towels, buy their own thrombosis stockings.
If everyone expects everything to be free, why would they appreciate the NHS?
You seem a sensible fella. Although being a bit red casts doubts !!!
Your first comment was a bit daft. The first sentence of your last paragraph is just wrong. It does. You probably never have run your own business. If you had you would know how wrong you were.
What's going on with the SP. Has there been any bad news? Jesus what happens when there is ?
This tax argument is laughably simplistic. How about 12% employee NI and 13.8% employer NI. Throw in 20% Vat as well. The other big one that people missed is the change in the taxatIon of dividends. HMRC is collecting record levels of tax and our stupid governments refuse to take tough decisions and keep spending it. Why does the NHS fill people full of drugs and refuse to let them pass away naturally with dignity? Why do people think that the only answer lies in more money? Do people not realise that finances do not improve when you continually increase the mortgage just to pay the bills? Do people realise that the U.K. deficit is £1.9tn and that we pay interest at over £5000 per second. These same intellectual giants argue that we should spend more. When government talk about reducing the deficit that mean reducing the annual deficit or specifically meaning that we add less to the mortgage this year to pay our bills than we did last year. Do people not realise that whilst money is currently is cheap the cost will increase and without control we would end up paying more in interest than for the entire NHS? Ultimately if you do not control spending you go bust and then end up letting down the very people that you most want to help and who are the most vulnerable. The media call it austerity - it is not austerity! Democracys all over the world are plagued by having to attract votes from voters who want it now. They have mortgaged our childrens future and it is the greatest scandal of the 21st century.
Oh come on FIAT, if you reduce the basic rate, the tax grab goes up. It is quite simple. Why are there so many Danes living in London? Do you have any verifiable evidence to prove that cutting the basic rate does not produce more tax.
It's a complicated subject, I thought you'd argue it sensibly frog. The key point being, raising taxes when you are at a certain point is counterproductive, the prior post highlights this precisely. I would suggest, given prior and recent evidences from the UK economy, we are at that point.
Read this, you may learn something, it gives both sides:-
Say we reduce everyone's tax to 1% then we would collect even more tax?
I am aware that in Gordon Brown's last budget there was an increase in the tax rate for some higher earners to 50% and that this lasted a year before Cameron's government reduced it again to 45%. This resulted in some higher income earners who were able to do so shifting the payment dates of some income (typically bonuses) either forward or backwards so that it did not fall within the tax year which had the 50% tax rate. This had the effect of artificially boosting tax income into the years before and after the year when the 50% rate applied. Some have argued on the basis of this that lesser rates of tax draws in more tax revenue. Of course it doesn't and what we saw was a perfectly legal tax avoidance technique.
It is silly to argue that reducing tax produces more tax income. It doesn't. Iust like tax reductions were supposed to lead to trickle down when they never did. Silly arguments like that are deployed by those who favour lesser rates of taxation.
Doesn't evidence prove that as taxes reduce, more is collected? High earners will utilise all manner of schemes to reduce their already high tax contributions. In fact we all do, who hasn't got an ISA?
I think Gov could end up taking 100% from everybody and in time still not have enough because they spend it so badly. They don't manage the drivers of the costs, understand them, plan for them, control them, yet they can spend £13Bn on aid, Bn's on aircraft carriers that are redundant before they launch, award themselves magnificent pay rises and fleece the nation with their gold plated pensions.
"I was using "finance.google" to 'track' for live updates on multiple shares at same time (without need for a portfolio tracker etc), it was pretty simple, effective and free; however in the past week or so they appear to have completely changed the layout/format and it's now pretty pants sadly...
Any recommendations for other sites folks may have that are worth a look?
Maybe of interest. This site appears to have the entire FTSE 100 SPs running live, but it's also VG for live commodities, indices, currencies, et al. Worth a look.
JD still holding LLOY shares at 66.78. Missed getting out at 68.19 yesterday for dithering, but I won't be adding in this climate due to enough exposure in these bearish markets elsewhere.
Considering FTSE has been hammered from 7792+ highs on 16th January to well under 7000 today, so in little over 2 months (rise in Sterling not helping), looks like it'll be a while before we see closer to even 70 here again. - Regards & GL.
my point about the 20% tax band was that everybody would pay something (they could mess with the personal allowance to mitigate those truly strapped). I don't think you can expect "the rich" to pay for anything (please note that I am not rich and since retiring do not pay higher rate tax but do pay a reasonable amount at basic rate)
As far a mac's point is concerned 1p on basic rate would cost a high earner £300 ish , so £1500 at 5p. So , I agree , the exodus wouldn't happen.
I think you are missing a very important point. People have a choice whether or not to live in the UK. If income tax was raised by even 3p, there would be a mass exodus by the top 5% of earners. As I have said before the top 1% of earners contribute 30% of all taxes. It is those people who are subsidising the NHS and state education."
"HMG has recognised that it needs to raise NHS pay or face political consequences"
At last. It should have been obvious that austerity wasn't bringing the benefits expected of it way back. HMG should not be given any credit for finally working it out They seem to be blind to the obvious consequences of Brexit as well. The only reason they "won" the recent election was because the ludicrous opposition.
"You cannot have Scandinavian quality public services with American levels of low taxation. "
Both shades of government seem to have accepted the dogma that the basic rate of income tax cannot be changed and must remain at 20% forevermore. Thus they tinker with bits and bobs everywhere. In reality they need to fess up and raise the basic rate by, say, 5p over the next three years. People will whine about it but the world won't end.
You're being too kind - what they have now is totally pants. Agreed that old google finance site was great, quick and had loads of data/news/graphs etc.
What I suspect they've done is change the platform to be more mobile friendly, but it is so much worse than what they had before - no better than that Microsoft Money app that comes with Windows.
Someone on here (Grill Bimsie I think it was) pointed me to a Google Drive Excel type spreadsheet they had written and that works very well for me and I've become quite good at fiddling with the spreadsheet to get it how I want. Still, not as good as the old google finance site but decent enough IMO. You will have to input all holdings and costs but cut and paste can save time here. I could never find a google ticker symbol for Shanghai Index to work in spreadsheet and some other stock tickers are tricky to find. I also use Yahoo Finance as a backup but don't like it - find it a bit messy and limited.
I was using "finance.google" to 'track' for live updates on multiple shares at same time (without need for a portfolio tracker etc), it was pretty simple, effective and free; however in the past week or so they appear to have completely changed the layout/format and it's now pretty pants sadly...
Any recommendations for other sites folks may have that are worth a look?
Well, it has opened below 7,000 this morning. As they say, its only a number.
HMG has recognised that it needs to raise NHS pay or face political consequences. It will no doubt reach a similar conclusion in other parts of public services. All this should provide a little stimulous to the economy albeit at the cost of some rise in inflation.
More should have been done since 2010 to invest in the infrastructure and HMG's failure to do so has crippled economic growth. There is a choice to make if we want to live in a decent society. You cannot have Scandinavian quality public services with American levels of low taxation.
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.