The Politics Thread

[Lord Kangana]

I think the point the MP explicitly made was that it was when the nod and wink takes place that there will be offered or asked for a "less for cash" transaction.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Dear God. Where do we start. With these 2 gems I suppose:

For me, when we have people paying plumbers, childminders, cleaners, whatever, in cash, it is a step on the way to that unhelpful mediterranean mindset

cash-in-hand job account for somewhere between 10-25% of the 'tax gap', i.e. the tax we don't collect but probably should, the bulk of the remaining 75-90% accounted for by corporate or wealthy individual tax avoidance

I'm all right Jack.

Well what do you want to say about these 2 gems?

To pick up Bish's point about practicalities - I totally agree. I pay my cleaner in cash and I have no idea how she arranges her affairs, so I'm not preaching - just saying that too much cash-in-hand work can have all sorts of negative consequences.

And how how do my very rough figures on corporate or wealthy individual suggest an 'I'm alright Jack' mentality - I can assure you that I don't benefit from either of thsoe activities!

Worthy's conttibutions here absolutely hit the mark:

My argument isn't that we should get this group or that group, it's that we should get ALL the tax dodging bastards. I think I'm paying shitloads more than I should - you're entitled to not being sure about that - but it's a fair old guess given you have no notion how much I pay (or actually whether I'm lying and dodge it all ). I would rather everyone paid as they were due. It won't happen, but that shouldn't mean we don't try. To suggest that it isn't material isn't correct IMO. £5.8bn (per year) on underaccounted tax declarations, £1.3bn on "ghost" workers, £1.8bn in people not declaring on second jobs - then you need to calculate how many of them can also claim benefits, because of their non-declarations. To say it's smaller than the amounts at the top end is correct. To say it's not material isn't.

The point is, they're not just taking it off me, they're taking off any poor fooker who earns more than £8,000 and pays all their tax. So they're often taking off people that earn possibly similar amounts or less than them.

My grumble isn't that I pay too much, it's that some folk at both ends don't pay what they should.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I still feel, as one MP has already pointed out, that it would be nigh on impossible to police anyway, and further my own feeling is that if very tough and very public measures are not taken to deal with it at the top end, you will never get the aqueisence of the lower end. Indeed, they will continue to think the way they do unless some high profile heads roll (call it a modern day lynching if you will), whether that is either sensible or legal.

What would this even look like?

Do people know what heads they would like to roll or what they'd like to see before they 'acquiesce' themselves?

[Lord Kangana]

Well, as several MP's have asked the question in parliament, its fairly easy to sum it up. No-one has faced any form of real, life changing prosecution or censure because of the banking crisis, or indeed over the scandal of large firms negotiating their own tax bills.

Under those circumstances, perhaps the more pertinent question should be why should anyone else toe the line? That sounds very close to an argument about moral obligations, not common sense. As you yourself just made the point that its nigh on impossible to compete in a market where others have an unfair advantage.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Well, as several MP's have asked the question in parliament, its fairly easy to sum it up. No-one has faced any form of real, life changing prosecution or censure because of the banking crisis, or indeed over the scandal of large firms negotiating their own tax bills.

Under those circumstances, perhaps the more pertinent question should be why should anyone else toe the line? That sounds very close to an argument about moral obligations, not common sense. As you yourself just made the point that its nigh on impossible to compete in a market where others have an unfair advantage.

Ok, well the banking crisis is surely a separate discussion to tax avoidance?

And how many of the masses whose acquiesence you speak of have the first idea who Dave Hartnett is, for example, or of any of the details of the advantageous settlements the large firms have secured?

I just can't see that the link is as direct as you suggest (and, it seems, some MPs suggest).

[thebish]

you don't have to look as far as the bankers... surely most of the MPs who fiddled their expenses and tax-arrangements got off pretty much scot-free - and they were allowed to investigate themselves and decide for themselves how they should be regulated...

that would never be the case for Mummy's cleaner should she ever get caught out...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

As I say... the only end point of this tit-for-tat line of conversation is that we give up and do things like the Greeks.

By all means keep the pressure on for a just conclusion in cases of MPs or companies shown to have acted outside the rules, but the 'why should we if...' stuff is dangerous.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Under those circumstances, perhaps the more pertinent question should be why should anyone else toe the line? That sounds very close to an argument about moral obligations, not common sense.

And just one further point - isn't the underlying question here 'should we enforce the tax rules against those who take cash in hand and don't declare?'.

If the answer is 'yes' then the answer to your question in bold is 'because if you don't you'll likely get caught and face the consequences'.

[thebish]

As I say... the only end point of this tit-for-tat line of conversation is that we give up and do things like the Greeks.

By all means keep the pressure on for a just conclusion in cases of MPs or companies shown to have acted outside the rules, but the 'why should we if...' stuff is dangerous.

aye - and so is the "we'll only enforce the law against A and not against B & C" stuff.....

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

As I say... the only end point of this tit-for-tat line of conversation is that we give up and do things like the Greeks.

By all means keep the pressure on for a just conclusion in cases of MPs or companies shown to have acted outside the rules, but the 'why should we if...' stuff is dangerous.

aye - and so is the "we'll only enforce the law against A and not against B & C" stuff.....

I agree - but in most of the MP and corporate tax avoidance cases, there were no technically no breaches of the rules involved. No, by all means say that those rules have to change, but that feeling of disatisfaction shouldn't be used to justify unambiguous law-breaking.

[Worthy4England]

I'm sure we've sort of been here before, when discussing speeding (one person takes a view 35 is fine, because it's only breaking the law a little bit type of thing, another takes the view that 30 is the limit so 35 is illegal).

You can't go prosecuting people who have broken no laws, and just because someone has found "loopholes" shouldn't extend the right for other people to break laws. Where prosecutions were able to be bought against MP's, I think they were, but it only amounted to half a dozen of them - and part of the reason for that is like the Tax Laws, the "rules" governing expenses were insufficiently clear, so it would have been difficult to prosecute.

Where I really struggle is with the "Under those circumstances why should anyone else toe the line" - The answer has to be well if we all did that, then surely we'd end up with everyone buying their own health insurance etc., because they all took the view they don't need to toe the line. Or are we suggesting that the only folk who don't have to toe the line are those paid cash in hand?

I'm sort of ok one way or another - either we all toe it, in which case the cash in hand mob pay their share along with closing loopholes at a higher rate/Corporate level. Or we all keep our own and each to their own, buys their own. Which way is it?

[Lord Kangana]

I wholeheartedly agree Worthy, if you're allowing one portion of society the means to pay the tax it feels it should, then its one step down that road. But lets be clear, it isn't a "loophole" they collectively exploited, unless holding a gun to the Government's and HMRC's heads is considered a "loophole".

And its not really a philosophical point I'm making, more a practical one.

We've clearly established that in any given economy, any unfair advantage has ramifications to other businesses or individuals competing in the same market place.

We've also established that some large companies in this country have negotiated their own tax bills. Outside of channels open to the ordinary business man or woman.

It has also been accepted that if large scale disobedience of the tax system were to take place, it is almost impossible to police. Further to the bish's point, both politicians and major companies have not been censured in the manner that the law states they could and should be.

Bearing in mind those factors, and the current state of the economy (caused by the banking crisis), I'm firmly of the opinion that the particular MP who made this point has nary a leg to stand on, unless he can demonstrate publicly all people are equal under the eyes of the law.

[Worthy4England]

I wholeheartedly agree Worthy, if you're allowing one portion of society the means to pay the tax it feels it should, then its one step down that road. But lets be clear, it isn't a "loophole" they collectively exploited, unless holding a gun to the Government's and HMRC's heads is considered a "loophole".

And its not really a philosophical point I'm making, more a practical one.

We've clearly established that in any given economy, any unfair advantage has ramifications to other businesses or individuals competing in the same market place.

We've also established that some large companies in this country have negotiated their own tax bills. Outside of channels open to the ordinary business man or woman.

It has also been accepted that if large scale disobedience of the tax system were to take place, it is almost impossible to police. Further to the bish's point, both politicians and major companies have not been censured in the manner that the law states they could and should be.

Bearing in mind those factors, and the current state of the economy (caused by the banking crisis), I'm firmly of the opinion that the particular MP who made this point has nary a leg to stand on, unless he can demonstrate publicly all people are equal under the eyes of the law.

Wouldn't disagree with this.

Large disobedience was a fairly significant factor in all three attempts to unsuccessfully introduce poll tax. So I'm always in favour of a bit of large scale disobedience.

I hear your comment about the MP having to demonstrate that wll are equal under the law - maybe his best course of action would have been to keep his gob shut.

[Hoboh]

Just shoot any sh*t that does not pay his/her tax and relive them of any bank accounts/proprty, that should have an interesting effect.
Actually I think everyone and I mean everyone should pay 20% tax with no get out clauses, no pay.you get banged up or dump a couple of hundred asylem seekers in their posh gaffs.
20% of a virgin blokes income would be 15 more than he's been paying mind you with the price of his mobiles on 'offers' no wonder he's got cash to burn

[Worthy4England]

Just shoot any sh*t that does not pay his/her tax and relive them of any bank accounts/proprty, that should have an interesting effect.
Actually I think everyone and I mean everyone should pay 20% tax with no get out clauses, no pay.you get banged up or dump a couple of hundred asylem seekers in their posh gaffs.
20% of a virgin blokes income would be 15 more than he's been paying mind you with the price of his mobiles on 'offers' no wonder he's got cash to burn

Do virgin blokes get an increase in tax for losing it, or a decrease?

[CrazyHorse]

[William the White]

Just shoot any sh*t that does not pay his/her tax and relive them of any bank accounts/proprty, that should have an interesting effect.
Actually I think everyone and I mean everyone should pay 20% tax with no get out clauses, no pay.you get banged up or dump a couple of hundred asylem seekers in their posh gaffs.
20% of a virgin blokes income would be 15 more than he's been paying mind you with the price of his mobiles on 'offers' no wonder he's got cash to burn

On planet hoboh the ruling class is known as 'The Great Unshot'.

[Worthy4England]

Chancellor George Osborne said that economic growth was "disappointing", but that the government had an opportunity to "give its 110% attention and effort and energy" to getting it moving

So George, given it's fcuking zero and you've been in the hot seat for two years, what the fcuk are you going to do about it and why, given it's been shite for two years, are you now suggesting you need to give it some attention and effort - have you only just noticed?

[thebish]

Chancellor George Osborne said that economic growth was "disappointing", but that the government had an opportunity to "give its 110% attention and effort and energy" to getting it moving

So George, given it's fcuking zero and you've been in the hot seat for two years, what the fcuk are you going to do about it and why, given it's been shite for two years, are you now suggesting you need to give it some attention and effort - have you only just noticed?

I think you'll find it's absolutely not his fault and actually it's all better than it seems....

[William the White]

Chancellor George Osborne said that economic growth was "disappointing", but that the government had an opportunity to "give its 110% attention and effort and energy" to getting it moving

So George, given it's fcuking zero and you've been in the hot seat for two years, what the fcuk are you going to do about it and why, given it's been shite for two years, are you now suggesting you need to give it some attention and effort - have you only just noticed?

I think you'll find it's absolutely not his fault and actually it's all better than it seems....

I think you'll find it's Gordon Brown's fault...