Taxes

[life on mars]

Indeed. Some local authorities lost as much as 70% of their central government money. There's no sign of that being replaced. Some English councils have been providing as basic a bare-bones service as a result, where only essentials as required by law have been provided. It comes to something when even Conservative councils have condemned the actions on council funding by its own party.

Yes I guess those types of cuts go unseen almost stealth like, is there a debate if those cuts had not been so ruthlessly the debt now before than the 300 billion , cuts or no cuts were ever stopping thus disease decimating the economy?

I'm not defending the past austerity measures

[Optimistic Nick]

What were the disadvantages of a AMT? I assume it would hit productivity as it would penalise those with high turnover and low margins? From your comments it’s never going to combat those of the amazon ilk.

It's a pretty big drag on start-ups, for one. And yes, it is a disproportionately high cost for low-margin businesses. And it is inherently unfair really- a tax on profits makes some sense as that is the net result of the business's income; and most countries already have a turnover tax in teh form of VAT/GST. I am sure one could be designed to pick up UK based sales rather than UK booked sales, but there are already international efforts to introduce exactly that form of taxation anyway.

As an aside I suspect Amazon do operate on some pretty fine margins, or even negative ones. I think their danger is often misunderstood. I don't actually think that tax has much to do with it. But they have the size and power to effectively run at a loss, or zero margin, and wipe out competition in certain markets. And they can do this for a very long time. I'm not really sure what governments, armed with taxes on profits, can really do to combat a business that can effectively foot the bill for running at a loss to eliminate local competition. It's not the loss of tax income from the replaced businesses that is the problem in my eyes; it is the actual elimination of those businesses in the first place.

[WJ99mobile]

It's a pretty big drag on start-ups, for one. And yes, it is a disproportionately high cost for low-margin businesses. And it is inherently unfair really- a tax on profits makes some sense as that is the net result of the business's income; and most countries already have a turnover tax in teh form of VAT/GST. I am sure one could be designed to pick up UK based sales rather than UK booked sales, but there are already international efforts to introduce exactly that form of taxation anyway.

As an aside I suspect Amazon do operate on some pretty fine margins, or even negative ones. I think their danger is often misunderstood. I don't actually think that tax has much to do with it. But they have the size and power to effectively run at a loss, or zero margin, and wipe out competition in certain markets. And they can do this for a very long time. I'm not really sure what governments, armed with taxes on profits, can really do to combat a business that can effectively foot the bill for running at a loss to eliminate local competition. It's not the loss of tax income from the replaced businesses that is the problem in my eyes; it is the actual elimination of those businesses in the first place.

Good summary

With highstreets and cities all fighting it won't take long for amazon to steal a march on them as people procrastinate on what should be prioritised. The fact we had people kick off on castle street being closed shows what a uphill task the UK has to make sure in store shopping has a USP over online shopping as I can imagine there is much more tax aligned to that with all the ancillary items (rent, rates, transport, parking, bite to eat etc)

[chris lee]

It seems we have two parties with two ideologies, one is to spend, spend, spend and the other is to cut cut cut.

There are massive problems with both approaches, Labour get us into massive debt and deficits,by spending other peoples hard earned money on useless things like free broadband (an already very affordable and accessible service), or nationalising industries that the government has no business being involved in, (such as buying airports)

Then the Tories, try to go against this by cutting services so hard, they they provide sub par experiences, staff or treated like shit, and customers frustrated.

In a 'if i was PM for a day scenario' I would say what the the two most important services for the population.

Education and Health.

I would x10 the budget for schools, double the staff, get them open 7am-7pm, offering three meals a day, breakfast clubs across the board, after school clubs, sports centers, each year group will have teachers, coaches, counselors ect..

Then NHS and Social Care x2 budget.. get it really well funded!

The trade off is then, cut everything else, just offer less services, also cut the pensions, while I love both sets of my grandparents the fact they all retired at 55-60 from public service jobs (police, nurse, power station manager and another nurse) have all gone on to thankfully live into their 90's means they have all been on a pension which is more than I could dream of ever earning in full time employment while not working for 40+ years shows how un-balanced the economy is.

If every person in the UK, was told look we will give you a fantastic education, and best start to life and tools we can provide you till your 18, and you will never have to worry about your health, but after that your on your own, we have given you the tools and freedom now go and prosper.

I would say that is a fair deal, and hopefully for every generation of well educated, well balanced motivated young adults that come out of the system, the less pressure (and need for spending) on Police, benefits, and pressure on NHS.

[Gofer Blue]

When a doc prescribes something over the counter, I end up binning the prescription and paying for it instead - I think lots of people do that.

It used to work fine before, and I think it is applied in England (they don't get universal free prescriptions). Every Government points at the fact "They put record amounts of money into the NHS" - but not many pay attention to the growing burden. Years ago you'd die from cancer fairly frequently - thankfully people mainly survive now, but that means increased care for survivors (check-ups, scans etc). Years ago, an infertile couple would live to the age of 80 with the NHS only having to look after them. Now, they may get 2 kids through IVF, and by the time they are 80 the NHS are looking after them and 7-10 descendants. I'm not saying that people shouldn't get fertility treatment - probably the best parents are those who appreciate the miracle of birth thanks to IVF - but it creates a burden to the NHS long after the IVF treatment has ended.

There are elements of NHS care that, frankly, should be paid for if people want (rather than need) those treatments. This should help subsidise the treatments that people need to function in life. There are grey areas (like IVF which, can be argued, helps create wealth over the long term). Gastric bands for people unable to control what they eat for example.

I suppose we should be grateful that we only die once these days? Sorry!