Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Saudi, Jordan and UAE have joined the US in air strikes against ISIS in Syria.

By Jeremy Warner

8:59PM BST 22 Sep 2014

Follow

CommentsComments





Difficult decisions were promised on Monday by Labour’s shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, to balance the books and help restore the public finances.


Given that the polls continue to suggest the strong probability of a Labour government after the next election in eight months’ time – Labour’s own not inconsiderable role in our current state of ruin notwithstanding – it’s worth listening a little more carefully than usual to what he has to say.


If by difficult, he means capping child benefit for a bit longer, cutting ministerial pay, means testing the winter fuel allowance, and that old chestnut, more efficient government – the only four commitments he made for further trimming public spending – then there is not a snowball’s chance in Hades of Labour achieving its separate pledge of falling national debt by the end of the next parliament. The sums saved through such measures are trivial compared with the scale of the problem.


We must therefore assume the tough decisions he was referring are chiefly the ones he glossed over – raising taxes. Indeed, by promising to restore the 10p tax band, a minor reduction in tax for lower earners, he sort of went the other way. There were also a number of other relatively insignificant tax-cutting promises. At the same time, he restated his intention to restore the 50p tax band and to impose a mansions tax. Neither will raise much, if any, extra money, and by putting a dampener on economic activity, may even end up revenue negative.


Already, the top 1pc of taxpayers contribute 30pc of all income tax, and the top 10pc of taxpayers 30pc of all taxes. The idea that these groups can be taxed even more without hitting the law of diminishing returns is for the birds. It’s been tried in France, and self evidently doesn’t work.


Related Articles
In two charts: Mario Draghi's plan to save the eurozone isn't working
22 Sep 2014
House prices: London's most luxurious flats in pictures
22 Sep 2014
Three reasons why Britain's housing market is broken
22 Sep 2014
Small businesses must be 'at heart of policy-making'
22 Sep 2014
Four myths about the cost of living crisis
22 Sep 2014
Labour's minimum wage plan 'puts jobs at risk', warns British business
21 Sep 2014
The future of business: lower salaries and more robots Brother



It is truly depressing that such a vacuous and potentially counterproductive, juggling around with the mix of tax and spend can count as serious economic debate. What Mr Balls proposes is merely the politics of small differences. It doesn’t add up to a hill of beans. And it surely doesn’t add up to a credible strategy for getting on top of the nation’s debts.

As it is, Mr Balls’ plans are quite a bit looser than the Coalition’s, for all he’s aiming for is to balance the budget on current spending, leaving aside anything that might be spent on investment. This is straight out of the Gordon Brown school of fiscal mumbo jumbo – that borrowing to invest doesn’t count when it comes to fiscal constraint. And the amount of fiscal flexibility it gives is a big number – 1.4pc of GDP a year, according to a study last week by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). It’s much like telling the bank manager that after years of neglect, you’ll be turning over a new leaf and balancing your expenditure with income, except when it comes to spending on that mansion in the country, or yacht on the French Riviera. If such fiscal flexibility were fully utilised, it would amount to a huge loosening compared with where we are at the moment.

Yet even to meet its stated targets, Labour is going to have to tax a whole lot more than it lets on, or alternatively cut spending a whole lot more. No prizes for guessing which it will be.

Most academic research confirms that in attempting to balance the books, tax rises are rather more damaging to economic growth than cuts to current spending. This long accepted truism was proved again in the early stages of the British consolidation, when a big hike in VAT helped kill the recovery stone dead .

But before detailing the scale of the challenge, let’s briefly revisit why we are where we are. Labour swept to victory back in 1997 partly on the back of a promise that it would stick broadly to the previous government’s fiscal consolidation plan, at least initially.

This time around, Mr Balls doesn’t even promise to do that. The present Government is scheduled to achieve falling debt as a share of GDP by 2016-17, whereas Mr Balls promises it only by the end of the parliament, three years later.

The starting point for these pledges is also completely different. In 1997, Labour was promising to complete the clean-up of a mess the Tories had created. Today we are still living with the consequences of Labour’s own mess. Mr Balls can no longer claim the moral high ground.

And what a mess it is. Mr Balls likes to blame the bankers for what happened, but the fault was at least as much his own. Tax revenues first started falling short of spending from around 2002 onwards, five years before the crisis. These were mostly boom years economically, yet tax revenues repeatedly came in lower than the Government’s optimistic, and apparently largely made up, forecasts for them. Alarm bells had been ringing for years, but they were ignored. The fiscal rules were meanwhile repeatedly bent and manipulated in order to maintain the pretence of responsibility.

For the five years from 2002-03 onwards, Labour ran a budget deficit of between 2.5pc and 3.5pc of GDP. As a result, overall government debt rose at a time when most industrialised countries were paying theirs down, leaving the UK peculiarly ill prepared, and with very little room for manoeuvre, when the crisis hit. So please, no more talk about how everything would have been fine but for the recklessness of bankers. It is abundantly clear they would not.

Today, Labour proposes more of the same – continued high levels of deficit spending even though experience tells us that the next downturn cannot be any more than two to three years away. By rights, Britain should already be running surpluses, but even on the present Government’s plans, these are still years away. Mr Balls does not appear to have learnt anything from his own boom and bust.

In its analysis of the fiscal outlook, the IFS tells us that “for all the main UK parties, based on the latest official forecasts for the economy and public finances, achieving their fiscal targets will require further tax increases, or cuts to welfare spending or public services in the next parliament. None of the parties have yet provided the electorate with full details of these tough choices.” Mr Balls’ conference speech may have been littered with rhetorical references to tough decisions, but it largely ducked them.

Britain still has a mountain to climb in getting back to fiscal sustainability. Nothing I heard on Monday suggested anything remotely resembling recognition of the scale of the problem.

And as I say, judging by the polling, what we were seeing was the next British government in waiting. Frightening.

multinational taxation
the amis seem able to bring in new taxation on this matter relatively easily, so why can't uk?

Osbourne.

starbucks
amazon
mc donalds
aldi
liddle
google
and many more pay very little tax to the uk
kick them out and only allow companies that pay their taxes
tell the public not to use these corrupt companies who are costing the uk population billions of lost tax that is why the nhs is struggling

You would have to kick out Ford, General Motors and almost every foreign company as they pay no tax in the UK. These days all multinational companies pick and choose the what country they pay their taxes in. Naturally they pick the ones that have the lowest tax regimes. People are only making a fuss about it because we are not in a boom. This policy of choosing a tax domicile has been happening since WWII.

TANKER if Osbourne taxed these companys you and Hays have listed hed be able to pay you a decent pension.

JUST THINK OF THAT.

VOTE LABOUR.

of course the companies are not remotely corrupt, but merely legally minimising their tax liabilities according to current legislation

how one plugs this loophole is not so simple or obvious, and though the amis appear to be making efforts to change the law, in quite what respect is not yet apparent

personally, i would have thought a form of WHT (withholding tax) would be the simplest, and that is certainly applied in more and more countries throughout the world

Ed Miliband is giving his keynote speech at the Lab conference today. That should be a riot. It is regarded as a make or break speech for him.

in your own way, i'm afraid you're as blinkered and smug as sticky - apparently and amazingly still welcome in his local conservative club! - and red fred

the government should put a tax on their products at point of sale . so the person buying will look at the extra cost buying from a tax fiddling company

gf if labour had a leader they would get many more votes but alas they chose a sickening clown a rich person talking like a person struggling to live he as not got a clue
the man is all for immigrants so he will not get in
the problem will be no right out winner at the next election .

ukip will hold the power with over 25% yes over 25%
we have had enough of immigrants ripping the soul out iof the uk
we want out of the corrupt eu and ship out all migrants

Milli will win the next GE.

His speech today like last years WITHOUT SCRIPT will be a work of art.

Cynic..........silly billy all the tories at my tory club like TANKER have moved over to UKIP. They have even taken down Maggies large photo because of the child molesting MPs under her reign. WHICH SHE KNEW ABOUT AND KEPT QUIET.

gf that is correct

Manuel,

I think you have the views of a blind man looking at a picture!

======

Taxation has to be reformed internationally and nationally.

I think that the taxation system in the UK is too complex and need to be simplified.

------
I think many in the city see of think that the EU will move to address some of the problems and also examine the transfer of "honest" money across the zone and attempt to deal with off shore tax havens,

Due to a large amount of the money movement "paper" money it may be simpler that it appears.

If the computerise “identity card" project had not been scrapped it would have enabled the tracing of funds more easily.
(Before you dismiss the latter, try an engage a few of the grey cells you have left.)
One of the reasons it was scrapped.

fred yes correct make tax simple if you earn you pay if you trade you pay

And if you go to Cuba you pay a comi tax.

GF.

I think of the Hazy one as a "want to be".

He didn't go to the Bullingdon Club but he wants to associate with them!

I wonder how Osborne will explain his latest success!

Public borrowing at £11.6bn in August
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne outside Number 11 Downing Street
Government borrowing is more than 6% higher than at the same time a year ago, official figures have shown
C

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) said public sector net borrowing stood at £11.6bn last month.

Total borrowing for this year stands at £45.4bn, some 6.2% higher than at the same time a year earlier.

immigration costs the uk over 44b ever year nhs schools benefits
we must get out of the stinking eu telling the uk they must give benefits to immigrants yet they do not pay them in spain france Germany the struggle to get any beneftis if the rest of the eu is like turning water in to wine

immigrants only come here for free meal ticket not to work lazy good for nothings
go down the dhs and take a look full of the scum