[Archived] Rant (4?)

[yoda]

Yeah, looks like they've upgraded their cameras and experimenting using a bit of depth of field.

Breaking the rules though, never work with animals and children

[Paul]

So tax is free money?

All money spent by a company is tracked. Owners and shareholder desire profit. If that profit is taxed, it impacts the amount of money in owner and shareholders pockets. That amount determines owner and shareholder satisfaction. If net profit is decreased, they will look to increase it. Other than cutting the cost of production, they can increase the price. Increasing price is logical if all competitors work under the same tax system (i.e. they are not acquiring a competitive disadvantage). That price paid by consumers.

It's a sad fact of economics that the middle income (and the poor) earners pay the bulk of everything, eventually. The only question is where down the line we pay it.

I didn't suggest tax is free money and don't begin to see how you reached that conclusion.

I responded to your comments about VAT, not company taxation, stating it impacts company profits. VAT does not have this effect as in the UK, and I imagine across the EU, VAT registered companies reclaim VAT charged on goods and services relating to the business.

There are exceptions to the rule, for example business related entertaining and aspects of car and fuel costs. Overall VAT is a tax levied on consumer goods (in the widest sense), ultimately paid by the consumer and collected by business which is where there is a cost to business.

As for the second paragraph. Yes of course that's true I don't need it explaining in that manner. However in the UK while all businesses work under the same tax system not all are treated equally under that system which is why people object to the activities of Starbucks, Google and Amazon to name just a few high profile cases - there are plenty of others.

Thinking about middle income and poor consumers paying the bulk of everything, you mean in tax terms? This suggests you would be a supporter of a tax regime whereby each pays according to his means? That surprises me. How do you see the alternative - each according to his means?

In the UK tax is far too complicated for me to discuss who pays for the "bulk of everything," I presume this is taxation. What is true is overall tax, not only income tax, and in particular VAT has a, high, disproportionate impact on the lower and middle income earners in that we pay proportionately more tax than higher earners.

[T J Hooker]

15+years no claims

Zero motor convictions

Worthless car

Low annual millage

And, he cheapest car insurance i can find is still around £500.

Robbing extortionate @#/?s.

[K-Hod]

Couldn't agree more re car insurance costs. I'm sure it was the case that in BB1 postcodes there were the highest instances of insurance fraud in the country which was why the premiums were so high.

Though premiums affected BB1-BB5 (I live in BB5), annoyingly!

[T J Hooker]

Im in bb2

[K-Hod]

Yeah, that could be why, though like I said, I'm not sure that's still the case. My car insurance is far too much as well, though I've only got myself to blame for that!

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

15+years no claims

Zero motor convictions

Worthless car

Low annual millage

And, he cheapest car insurance i can find is still around £500.

Robbing extortionate @#/?s.

Think you're blaming entirely the wrong people there. Any business has to make money and the reason insurance companies have to charge you £500 is to pay for all the fraudulent claims that are made in and around Blackburn.

Its just one of the many, many ways that prats in society cost everyone else money. Prisoners, aspiring terrorists, littering, tax evasion, shoplifting, fraud, slave labour, even dog owners who don't clean up after their pets.

Every time anyone breaks the law in any way, however minor, it costs everyone else money. And as the money pot is far from bottomless, ultimately our society will either maintain its current living standards or collapse into a dysfunctional dump like South Africa is currently doing, depending on the values/principles and local/national pride of its citizens.

[T J Hooker]

My driving history is spotless

Im sure the insurance companies will say the high prices are because of the postcode your in and so many people claiming for whiplash and other fraudulent stuff. But if whiplash is such a drain on the system for both sides than why cant they just have a clause so you cant claim for whiplash(which is nothing more than a temporarily sore stiff neck in the majority of legitimate cases anyway) And it goes without saying that financially penalising people because of the area they live in is just plain wrong.

Its just a total racket and i can fully understand why so many people have to resort to fiddling the system just to be able to afford to get behind the wheel.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

My driving history is spotless

Im sure the insurance companies will say the high prices are because of the postcode your in and so many people claiming for whiplash and other fraudulent stuff. But if whiplash is such a drain on the system for both sides than why cant they just have a clause so you cant claim for whiplash(which is nothing more than a temporarily sore stiff neck in the majority of legitimate cases anyway) And it goes without saying that financially penalising people because of the area they live in is just plain wrong.

Its just a total racket and i can fully understand why so many people have to resort to fiddling the system just to be able to afford to get behind the wheel.

It doesn't really matter if yours is spotless if they can't make money from the people whose records aren't spotless. If only it was possible to make the idiots in society pay for their own anti-social tendencies but in many cases I just don't think that's practical. As a non-related driving example, say person A assaults person B, causing some measure of brain damage to person B and ensuring person B requires round the clock care for the rest of their life. That will probably cost the taxpayer about £2m in NHS resources and maybe £4m in compensation. Person A sure isn't gonna pay the £6m, even if they could they'd just declare bankruptcy or refuse to in some other manner.

This is why in my opinion normal people should always get very, very angry at crime (however minor). But then politically I'm right of centre so maybe that's just how I see it.

[T J Hooker]

Matters to me.

(and sorry but i wasnt responding to your post, it was in response to khods)

[speeeeeeedie]

The M6.

What a mess. It needs widening to 6 lanes.

[jim mk2]

And what happens when those 6 lanes are full ? 8 lanes, 12 lanes ? Another motorway on top? Building more roads merely creates more traffic and usually just shifts the problem elsewhere. The country needs better public transport, not an environmental hell.

[Steve Moss]

I didn't suggest tax is free money and don't begin to see how you reached that conclusion.

I responded to your comments about VAT, not company taxation, stating it impacts company profits. VAT does not have this effect as in the UK, and I imagine across the EU, VAT registered companies reclaim VAT charged on goods and services relating to the business.

There are exceptions to the rule, for example business related entertaining and aspects of car and fuel costs. Overall VAT is a tax levied on consumer goods (in the widest sense), ultimately paid by the consumer and collected by business which is where there is a cost to business.

As for the second paragraph. Yes of course that's true I don't need it explaining in that manner. However in the UK while all businesses work under the same tax system not all are treated equally under that system which is why people object to the activities of Starbucks, Google and Amazon to name just a few high profile cases - there are plenty of others.

Thinking about middle income and poor consumers paying the bulk of everything, you mean in tax terms? This suggests you would be a supporter of a tax regime whereby each pays according to his means? That surprises me. How do you see the alternative - each according to his means?

In the UK tax is far too complicated for me to discuss who pays for the "bulk of everything," I presume this is taxation. What is true is overall tax, not only income tax, and in particular VAT has a, high, disproportionate impact on the lower and middle income earners in that we pay proportionately more tax than higher earners.

If I'm reading you right, we appear to be in agreement that tax imposed on business, whether sales or corporate, will eventually be paid by the customer (i.e. the everyday working man) either as a direct pass through (VAT, as the UK calls it) or via price increase, all other factors being equal.

If that is largely correct, then every time we raise tax (of any type) on a business we are actually raising taxes on the middle and lower income. Maybe it has to be done for the greater good, etc., but we shouldn't pretend that we're socking it to the evil capitalist pigs because, eventually, they'll recoup it by passing it on to the consumer. We're taxing ourselves.

As to solutions, I have none. I'm not Soloman. I see the problem but I have no cure that avoids the middle and lower incomes taking it in the shorts.

By way of tax philosophy:

Property tax- I hate it, A property tax means you really don't own your property. You're actually a tenant of the government.

Income tax- I hate it. An income tax means the government owns a portion of your labor. Which means you (and I) are at least partially enslaved. Have we really escaped medieval serfdom? For all intents and purposes, it seems the lord still owns a part of our labor.

Sales tax (or VAT)- I'm okay with it. If we tax consumption we're taxing based on a person's choices. We're effectively deciding how much tax we pay (if you buy a Honda you pay less and if you buy a Rolls you pay more, either way you decide). If I could get rid of every other tax and just go with a 50% sales tax (or any other % of your choice), I'd go for it.

The above is pure political philosophy and has nothing to do with economic impacts. One way or the other, the little guy will always wind up footing the bill. Which is why I get irritated when people talk about business dodging taxes as if it won't effect me or you if that tax is ultimately collected. If Amazon pays, that means ultimately I (and you) will pay.

[ultrablue]

Unless you don't pay Amazon, and look of a cheaper alternative. You seem to be looking at this entirely on the supply side of things. Taxes on businesses are only one part of what makes prices increase or decrease. A tax rise on business does not always mean a rise in consumer prices. If the price is too high for consumers, we can always decide to buy from a supplier that has lower prices due to better efficiency, lower overheads, or someone that can tolerate lower profits.

Looking only at the supply side is like looking at only half the picture. You need to look at demand too. Put it this way - if all taxes on businesses were abolished, would prices decrease? Of course not, because demand wouldn't change.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

The M6.

What a mess. It needs widening to 6 lanes.

Overpopulation. England has the 31st highest population density in the world, behind only Holland, Rwanda, South Korea, Bangladesh and Taiwan in terms of big countries. And the population is expected to increase by 10 million in the next 25 years. We'll always have problems with transport, housing, the environment, flooding, schools, the NHS etc etc whilst our population is ballooning.

[T J Hooker]

Do you have kids?

[jim mk2]

There's nothing wrong with a rising population - in fact, it is to be welcomed because more people keeps the overall average age of the population younger and it means more people in the workforce and more economic growth. A rising population inevitably places strains on infrastructure and services but it is the job of govt to provide for that growth. As far as transport is concerned, we'll have 70m people in this country by 2027 and possibly 80m by 2050 - and they need to get around for work and leisure. With emissions targets to be met, major road building should be off the agenda and money pumped into public transport to make it a viable alternative to the car all over the country and not just in urban areas.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Do you have kids?

No, why?

There's nothing wrong with a rising population - in fact, it is to be welcomed because more people keeps the overall average age of the population younger and it means more people in the workforce and more economic growth. A rising population inevitably places strains on infrastructure and services but it is the job of govt to provide for that growth. As far as transport is concerned, we'll have 70m people in this country by 2027 and possibly 80m by 2050 - and they need to get around for work and leisure. With emissions targets to be met, major road building should be off the agenda and money pumped into public transport to make it a viable alternative to the car all over the country and not just in urban areas.

There's loads of things wrong with a rising population when a country is already overpopulated, I've just mentioned about 6 areas that its extremely damaging in.

There's one good thing about it, that you mentioned, but its nowhere near worth the trade off in my opinion. What's the point in economic growth if people can't enjoy their leisure in the countryside because its been concreted over, or they're forking out their life savings every other year because the only available land for housing is on a flood plain, or if they have to spend hours getting too and from work each day because the transport network is completely overloaded.

And where does it end? You obviously don't have a problem with an 80m UK population by 2050, would you have a problem with a 120m one by 2100? Or a 200m one by 2200? How about 1 billion people living here in 500 years? There clearly is a problem with rising population if you extend the argument far enough. Population control just isn't a palatable issue to deal with, but we can deal with it eventually or we can destroy the planet.

In the meantime living standards will continue to drop for the majority whilst the fortunate minority escape to some leafy countryside village and then put up the barricades and vociferously oppose any house building in said village.

[jim mk2]

Unless you don't pay Amazon, and look of a cheaper alternative. You seem to be looking at this entirely on the supply side of things. Taxes on businesses are only one part of what makes prices increase or decrease. A tax rise on business does not always mean a rise in consumer prices. If the price is too high for consumers, we can always decide to buy from a supplier that has lower prices due to better efficiency, lower overheads, or someone that can tolerate lower profits.

Looking only at the supply side is like looking at only half the picture. You need to look at demand too. Put it this way - if all taxes on businesses were abolished, would prices decrease? Of course not, because demand wouldn't change.

Corporate tax in Britain is among the lowest of the G7 but the reduction in business costs have not been passed down to consumers merely pocketed by shareholders in the form of higher dividends and the fat cats in the boardroom in the form of ever higher pay rises and bonuses.

VAT is the most pernicious of taxes but it hits the poorest and weakest in society the most. Property is severely undertaxed in this country and is one reason why house prices continue to go through the roof (so to speak), though to be fair Osborne has started to clamp down on the buy to let market. Capital gains on primary residences would help to end this nation's (and other countries such as the US) obsession with investing in property.

Income tax is the best form of taxation because if it is structured properly it is progressive and helps to tackle inequality. I am happy to pay higher income tax if it leads to better public services and better infrastructure.

[Steve Moss]

Unless you don't pay Amazon, and look of a cheaper alternative. You seem to be looking at this entirely on the supply side of things. Taxes on businesses are only one part of what makes prices increase or decrease. A tax rise on business does not always mean a rise in consumer prices. If the price is too high for consumers, we can always decide to buy from a supplier that has lower prices due to better efficiency, lower overheads, or someone that can tolerate lower profits.

Looking only at the supply side is like looking at only half the picture. You need to look at demand too. Put it this way - if all taxes on businesses were abolished, would prices decrease? Of course not, because demand wouldn't change.

My recollection is that price has a direct effect on demand. The lower the price, the higher the demand. The higher the price, the lower the demand.

So adding taxes into the price will decrease demand. Eliminating taxes will reduce the price and therefore increase the demand.

Your statement that a more efficient company would simply absorb the taxes, keep the price the same and therefore outsell their competitors is correct. But: 1) that efficient company would do so with or without taxes into the equation if the taxes are uniform; and, 2) that efficient company will eventually drive its competitor out of business (assuming the inefficient company didn't make changes), after which prices will rise again.

Under no system (other than a command economy) do consumers avoid the financial consequence of tax over the long term, either in the form of higher prices or lost jobs. Whether for reasons of politics or economics, the middle and lower incomes eventually bear the economic brunt of these systems.

There's nothing wrong with a rising population - in fact, it is to be welcomed because more people keeps the overall average age of the population younger and it means more people in the workforce and more economic growth. A rising population inevitably places strains on infrastructure and services but it is the job of govt to provide for that growth. As far as transport is concerned, we'll have 70m people in this country by 2027 and possibly 80m by 2050 - and they need to get around for work and leisure. With emissions targets to be met, major road building should be off the agenda and money pumped into public transport to make it a viable alternative to the car all over the country and not just in urban areas.

In addition to SKH's objections, I'd point out that increased population is an economic benefit if it reduces the net percentage paid toward benefits. If the benefits paid outstrips the population increase, you are only further burdening the system.

So be careful of who you allow to immigrate into the UK.

[joey_big_nose]

In the meantime living standards will continue to drop for the majority whilst the fortunate minority escape to some leafy countryside village and then put up the barricades and vociferously oppose any house building in said village.

Are living standards dropping? People are living longer, more active, healthier, safer lives than ever before? It is true middle and lower incomes have hugely stagnated, and property is unaffordable (both massive issues) but consumable products and services have become much cheaper.

It's a strange thing about humanity that the last 65 years have seen extraordinary growth of opportunity - health, travel, technology, peace which are accessible to the majority of people not just elites - yet it is a common opinion that things are getting worse? Interesting.

In terms of the broader point about population density - personally my view is London and the South East are already very densely populated, but there is some room for expansion. That area is not as dense as the province of Holland in the Netherlands for example. That said London is projected to grow by a million people in the next ten years - it is hard to see how it can grow much beyond that.

On the other hand much of the North and West, as well as Wales and Scotland, could desperately do with the economic stimulus immigration provides, but you need the economic infrastructure to provide the jobs for the people coming in (and provide better jobs for the people already there). Much of that isn't in place at the moment. George Osbourne is on to the right track with the "northern powerhouse" but you have to wonder how good the plans are. It seems like empty rhetoric mostly, I don't see a real desire to become less London focussed.

Companies need to want to move away from London. That is the crux of it, and then the deman for everything (houses, jobs, employees, infrastructure, migrants) can work to everyone's benefit.

[speeeeeeedie]

And what happens when those 6 lanes are full ? 8 lanes, 12 lanes ? Another motorway on top? Building more roads merely creates more traffic and usually just shifts the problem elsewhere. The country needs better public transport, not an environmental hell.

I wasn't proposing a solution, just having a rant at the amount of cars on the motorway. I drove back from Birmingham to Manchester, it was bumper to bumper all the way. As a non-resident now I see how England changes when I return. It's been a while since I've driven on the M6 that far. I usually fly or train it.

I agree that Britain is a small island with lots of people on it, with a sub standard public transportation network. A case in point is the much touted (by the local MP at least) reopening of the Todmorden curve allowing people to travel directly to Manchester from Accrington by train. It takes over an hour to get there. Slower than100 years ago. It's hardly worthwhile. Even with traffic you can drive it in 40 mins.

I was home in August too and spent time reading about HS1 and HS2. A bit of a waste. Increase rail routes From Liverpool to Hull, and areas connecting and you'll shift some people to different places to work easing some of the burden.

[K-Hod]

Unless you're central, there is no real need to get the train to Manchester from Accy tbh, the bus is easier, always has been.

[T J Hooker]

No, why?

There's loads of things wrong with a rising population when a country is already overpopulated, I've just mentioned about 6 areas that its extremely damaging in.

There's one good thing about it, that you mentioned, but its nowhere near worth the trade off in my opinion. What's the point in economic growth if people can't enjoy their leisure in the countryside because its been concreted over, or they're forking out their life savings every other year because the only available land for housing is on a flood plain, or if they have to spend hours getting too and from work each day because the transport network is completely overloaded.

And where does it end? You obviously don't have a problem with an 80m UK population by 2050, would you have a problem with a 120m one by 2100? Or a 200m one by 2200? How about 1 billion people living here in 500 years? There clearly is a problem with rising population if you extend the argument far enough. Population control just isn't a palatable issue to deal with, but we can deal with it eventually or we can destroy the planet.

In the meantime living standards will continue to drop for the majority whilst the fortunate minority escape to some leafy countryside village and then put up the barricades and vociferously oppose any house building in said village.

Becaise obviously of you did then it would be pretty hypocritical of you, but you dont, so good.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Becaise obviously of you did then it would be pretty hypocritical of you, but you dont, so good.

Not really, it'd be hypocritical if I had 4 or more. 3 kids or less isn't contributing to population growth because some people inevitably won't be able to have kids, will die before they can have them, won't want them etc.

The UK population is being driven by half a million people coming in every year, and then a lot of those people being from cultures where families with 4+ kids is still the done thing.