The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[TightEnd]

looks like Dominic Raab is seeking to prevent any amendments to the meaningful vote - preventing any votes other than May deal or No Deal - if this letter is any guide

[TightEnd]

EU Parliament in favour of THREE year transition period.

"We are in favour Three years is our proposal for this I agree with the new proposal for M Barnier, We think it is a good choice good choice , we need to work hard for the agreement it is not easy"

[TightEnd]

meanwhile,i am open to Scarlett Johannson knocking on my front door

[kukushkin88]

Groundhog Day, as I wake to read kush stating,

You don't seem to be getting this

It's beyond ridiculous/ truly ridiculous/ idiotic rant.

I don't care what you do, pay, get taxed etc, yet professes to claim about all of us.....

Another fun day ahead in thread Brexit

Good morning,

What did I “claim about all of us”? The guy said we should thank him for paying truckloads of tax and then said I was spitting in his face. It’s all a long way removed reality atm.

I am happy to stop posting if the consensus is that that’s what is best for the thread/everyone in it.

Of course not. Once again sense of humour alert....

But even in the post directly after the top one, you state how thoroughly Mantis doesn't understand......

Mix up your insults a bit please

To be fair, reading the posts, it does appear that neither Mantis or Dung appear to understand how to debate or put an argument together.

Some bizarre posts from them.

Good morning Stu/Red,

No intent for matyrdom, I’ll happily discuss/debate anything with anyone. I’m extremely comfortable with my standpoint, sometimes the presentation is poor and I apologise when I am made aware of that (sometimes I work it out for myself:-). I’d love people to present a coherent and intelligent counter argument though. There’s literally no better way to refine and improve how you think than to intelligently discuss something with people who disagree with you. Being persuaded to change my mind is one of my favourite things and certainly my favourite way to learn.

My question about not posting was not ‘toys out of the pram’. It was a genuine consideration targeted at the reasonable people like you and Stuart, clearly I upset some people but is my net contribution positive. I’m not angry or upset, it’s just trying to make an assessment of whether my posting has value to others.

[DungBeetle]

What do you perceive the merit of higher VAT to be? Just seems to be disproportionately unfair on the poor/poverty stricken.

It's a mirage.  The poor don't save.  Savings don't get taxed.  Thus VAT can be made to look statistically like it impacts the poor as a percentage of income.  I pay a fortune in VAT but I also save money.  Unless we tax the act of saving, then VAT will always skew the numbers.  The Scandanavians are said to have a fair society.  Presumably you are happy to follow their tax model?  I am.

Good morning,

You’ll need to explain the savings/vat ‘mirage’. There must be a key bit information I’m missing. I’ve researched extensively on the internet and there’s nothing there. If you or anyone else could provide insight that would be most appreciated.

Are you suggesting we use a different method to measure this other than ‘as a % of total income’? You say the poor don’t save like it’s a criticism. This is austerity Britain, they also don’t always eat, heat their homes or clothe their children but I can’t see what the lack of savings has to do with VAT.

Why not just ask me what I think about rates of taxation? Telling me what I should and shouldn’t like is just weird and comes across as an angry and idiotic rant.

I’ve asked you already but you dodge the question.  Are you in agreement that the Scandinavian taxation model is desirable and that we all pay more for public services?

The savings point isn’t a criticism.  It simply makes it a mathematical certainty that the poor will pay more tax as a percentage of income because we don’t tax savings.   So unless you want to tax non consumption percentage of income including consumption taxes (vat and duty)is a poor measure in my view and only used to make political points.  You are not comparing like with like.

I don’t think we can just implement a tax system from a very different country, even if we do admire multiple aspects of their society. I think it’s more  complicated than that. I’d never intentionally dodge a question, so no, I’m not in agreement.

How is percentage of total income paid out in VAT not like for like? It seems to be the measure used in all the analysis/studies I can find.

Fair response.  On percentage of income, I don't think you will find much supporting my view.  The reason I am of that opinion is because as a measure it punishes saving, and rewards those who pay duty.  It punishes those who purchase fresh food and have children and rewards those who are single and have a more unhealthy diet.  I was very bored once a couple of years back and plugged into a spreadsheet various incomes (in 10k increments up to 50k), circumstances (family or single) and lifestyles (ignoring all benefits and just treating everything as earned income).  I acknowledge nobody in their right mind is going to do this, but if you play around with the numbers and then look at total contribution and percentage of total tax paid you can easily arrive at the conclusion that you need to ramp up tax on citizens who are already paying a high contribution and just happen to live frugally.   Based off these musings I arrived at the conclusion that it would be unwise to base government policy off total taxation as a percentage of income.

The reason I brought Scandanavia into the debate, was that the same analysis on their tax system would be interesting, given they have 32% income tax from £1.5k earning plus 25% VAT. 

[BigAdz]

A point that seemed to have passed me by when in discussion yesterday was

Didn't we all think we would have to make sacrifices to accommodate Brexit?

I think the answer was a clear yes. We all understood there would be some pain. The question should probably have been how much?

I'm not sure that  some that agreed in the first instance had much of a pain threshold and hence the ever increasing noise as we can't get our way, exactly as we want it.

I am under no illusions that the majority now wish to stay, not because they have changed their mind on the original principles of voting  Leave, but more because of the intimated or unexplained level of pain they might have to go through.

Asking the fellow Brexiteers, what financial level of pain, either as a number or percentage of monthly salary are you prepared to pay to get the resolution you want?

Also open to the open minded Remainers, who might want to pick a figure that would see them achieve a happy medium they would be content with.

[DungBeetle]

A point that seemed to have passed me by when in discussion yesterday was

Didn't we all think we would have to make sacrifices to accommodate Brexit?

I think the answer was a clear yes. We all understood there would be some pain. The question should probably have been how much?

I'm not sure that  some that agreed in the first instance had much of a pain threshold and hence the ever increasing noise as we can't get our way, exactly as we want it.

I am under no illusions that the majority now wish to stay, not because they have changed their mind on the original principles of voting  Leave, but more because of the intimated or unexplained level of pain they might have to go through.

Asking the fellow Brexiteers, what financial level of pain, either as a number or percentage of monthly salary are you prepared to pay to get the resolution you want?

Also open to the open minded Remainers, who might want to pick a figure that would see them achieve a happy medium they would be content with.

To my mind the only logical reason for Brexit was as you say to understand that there would be 5/10 years of pain in return for a potential more beneficial long term future.  I voted remain because I didn't think the numbers worked in this calculation.  Right now, I'd take a 5% drop in my living standards for 5 years while we get out of this mess.  I am worried it could be worse though.  The politicians don't seem to have a grip on this at all.

[TightEnd]

Brexiteers are hopping mad at May this morning

a very good read

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/these-are-dangerous-days-for-theresa-may/

[RED-DOG]

At the moment it seems to me that the question isn't "Should we/shouldn't we Brexit?" it's "Is it actually possible and if so how?"

[nirvana]

Will the be VAT after Brexit?

There will be nothing after Brexit ..nothing.

[RED-DOG]

Will the be VAT after Brexit?

There will be nothing after Brexit ..nothing.

I lolled.

[Dewi_cool]

Will the be VAT after Brexit?

There will be nothing after Brexit ..nothing.

I lolled.

so did I

[TightEnd]

a very interesting must read for our friend Mr Dunt

"You can see the outline of a Brexit compromise already. The two sides want it. They're talking kind of the same kind of language. The trouble is that the compromise position is so utterly deranged that it will poison our politics for years. "

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/10/18/last-gasp-brexit-deal-fix-will-poison-our-politics-for-years

[kukushkin88]

What do you perceive the merit of higher VAT to be? Just seems to be disproportionately unfair on the poor/poverty stricken.

It's a mirage.  The poor don't save.  Savings don't get taxed.  Thus VAT can be made to look statistically like it impacts the poor as a percentage of income.  I pay a fortune in VAT but I also save money.  Unless we tax the act of saving, then VAT will always skew the numbers.  The Scandanavians are said to have a fair society.  Presumably you are happy to follow their tax model?  I am.

Good morning,

You’ll need to explain the savings/vat ‘mirage’. There must be a key bit information I’m missing. I’ve researched extensively on the internet and there’s nothing there. If you or anyone else could provide insight that would be most appreciated.

Are you suggesting we use a different method to measure this other than ‘as a % of total income’? You say the poor don’t save like it’s a criticism. This is austerity Britain, they also don’t always eat, heat their homes or clothe their children but I can’t see what the lack of savings has to do with VAT.

Why not just ask me what I think about rates of taxation? Telling me what I should and shouldn’t like is just weird and comes across as an angry and idiotic rant.

I’ve asked you already but you dodge the question.  Are you in agreement that the Scandinavian taxation model is desirable and that we all pay more for public services?

The savings point isn’t a criticism.  It simply makes it a mathematical certainty that the poor will pay more tax as a percentage of income because we don’t tax savings.   So unless you want to tax non consumption percentage of income including consumption taxes (vat and duty)is a poor measure in my view and only used to make political points.  You are not comparing like with like.

I don’t think we can just implement a tax system from a very different country, even if we do admire multiple aspects of their society. I think it’s more  complicated than that. I’d never intentionally dodge a question, so no, I’m not in agreement.

How is percentage of total income paid out in VAT not like for like? It seems to be the measure used in all the analysis/studies I can find.

Fair response.  On percentage of income, I don't think you will find much supporting my view.  The reason I am of that opinion is because as a measure it punishes saving, and rewards those who pay duty.  It punishes those who purchase fresh food and have children and rewards those who are single and have a more unhealthy diet.  I was very bored once a couple of years back and plugged into a spreadsheet various incomes (in 10k increments up to 50k), circumstances (family or single) and lifestyles (ignoring all benefits and just treating everything as earned income).  I acknowledge nobody in their right mind is going to do this, but if you play around with the numbers and then look at total contribution and percentage of total tax paid you can easily arrive at the conclusion that you need to ramp up tax on citizens who are already paying a high contribution and just happen to live frugally.   Based off these musings I arrived at the conclusion that it would be unwise to base government policy off total taxation as a percentage of income.

The reason I brought Scandanavia into the debate, was that the same analysis on their tax system would be interesting, given they have 32% income tax from £1.5k earning plus 25% VAT. 

All interesting stuff. Clearly you know lots about tax, that can only add to the quality of the debate. It’s certainly nice for the conversation to be civilised again :-)

[TightEnd]

Brexit takeaways from EUCO press conference

— transition extension being considered
— backstop almost certainly won't be time-limited
— de facto choice: customs union, or no deal

May's moment of truth is coming. How does she get this through ERG? she won't so will "friendly" "non Corbyn" Labour help vote it through?

(assuming something resembling this getssigned)