peterms Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 the deficit Accordiing to clegg was 180 Billion. Tax evasion mosty from the rich in 200 Billion. I think a lot of people can do that math...! According to the Guardian and the commons public accounts committee the tax evasion may be £8.5bn The TUC thinks it might be £12bn Richard Murphy"]We know: – That according to HMRC tax avoidance and tax evasion combined come to at least £42 billion a year – My research shows that they have massively underestimated these figures – which are really £70 billion a year for tax evasion and maybe £25 billion a year for tax avoidance – At any time there is unpaid tax of £120 billion in the UK economy – Up to £38 billion a year has been given in the form of subsidies to the private pension industry each year despite which the value of many if not most pension funds has gone down over the last decade and the industry is, despite the subsidy, only paying out pensions of £35 billion a year, which is less than he subsidy they receive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I'm sorry I don't know who Richard Murphy is. All I can quote from a quick search on google exluding Telegraph and Mail is the ones I posted. and whats the difference between avoidance and evasion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I'm sorry I don't know who Richard Murphy is. All I can quote from a quick search on google exluding Telegraph and Mail is the ones I posted. and whats the difference between avoidance and evasion He researches tax dodging. He is probably the foremost authority on taxdodgers, and as a result is hated and attacked by them at every opportunity. There are two answers to your second question. People working for tax dodgers will say that one's legal and one's illegal, and anything that's legal is by definition right and proper. People not working for tax dodgers will say that the boundary between legal and illegal taxdodging is false and in any event frequently breached, and that taxdodgers lie and cheat to manipulate their returns so they appear to have avoided and not evaded tax. Me. I say it's all the same pack of cards, and we need to get tough with these people. Take that tax, close them down, prosecute them like we do "benefit cheats" (though tax dodgers cost us far, far more money). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I'm sorry I don't know who Richard Murphy is. All I can quote from a quick search on google exluding Telegraph and Mail is the ones I posted. and whats the difference between avoidance and evasion He researches tax dodging. He is probably the foremost authority on taxdodgers, and as a result is hated and attacked by them at every opportunity. There are two answers to your second question. People working for tax dodgers will say that one's legal and one's illegal, and anything that's legal is by definition right and proper. People not working for tax dodgers will say that the boundary between legal and illegal taxdodging is false and in any event frequently breached, and that taxdodgers lie and cheat to manipulate their returns so they appear to have avoided and not evaded tax. Me. I say it's all the same pack of cards, and we need to get tough with these people. Take that tax, close them down, prosecute them like we do "benefit cheats" (though tax dodgers cost us far, far more money). OK thanks, the only thing I dont get on this Murphy chap is on that link it says that tax avoidance is about £70m but on checking him he is an advisor to the TUC and yet they only quote £12bn, surely it would be in their interest to quote his higher figure. I do agree though that tax avoidance/evasion costs more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I'm sorry I don't know who Richard Murphy is. All I can quote from a quick search on google exluding Telegraph and Mail is the ones I posted. and whats the difference between avoidance and evasion He researches tax dodging. He is probably the foremost authority on taxdodgers, and as a result is hated and attacked by them at every opportunity. There are two answers to your second question. People working for tax dodgers will say that one's legal and one's illegal, and anything that's legal is by definition right and proper. People not working for tax dodgers will say that the boundary between legal and illegal taxdodging is false and in any event frequently breached, and that taxdodgers lie and cheat to manipulate their returns so they appear to have avoided and not evaded tax. Me. I say it's all the same pack of cards, and we need to get tough with these people. Take that tax, close them down, prosecute them like we do "benefit cheats" (though tax dodgers cost us far, far more money). OK thanks, the only thing I dont get on this Murphy chap is on that link it says that tax avoidance is about £70m but on checking him he is an advisor to the TUC and yet they only quote £12bn, surely it would be in their interest to quote his higher figure. I do agree though that tax avoidance/evasion costs more The TUC figure comes from Murphy, though it's 3 years old. There could be several explanations for the different figures, not least the fact that the people concerned are trying to hide the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAFC2000 Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 The point is, is that tax avoidance costs a lot of money......! Add that to Trident....! Hence why these cuts are basic Torry Ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAFC2000 Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 How shameful that not only our national debate, but the pronouncements of our elected leaders, don't understand this simple point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted July 28, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted July 28, 2011 I'm not sure what Mr. Holt has to do with spending cuts in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Have you heard of World War 2...? There was a second world war?! I'm clearly out of my depth here and surrender forthwith. Be gentle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Labour commit to halve the deficit by 2014? That would have led to cuts of around 20% as opposed to the 25% we are seeing in some areas now. Indeed but now that they don’t have a general election to salvage, all is quiet on the prudence front from Labour they were also going to increase VAT but don't let a little thing like the truth get in the way (it's in Mandelsons memoirs before the labourites start spouting it as Murdoch spin or what ever todays buzz word from party HQ is ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Labour commit to halve the deficit by 2014? That would have led to cuts of around 20% as opposed to the 25% we are seeing in some areas now. Indeed but now that they don’t have a general election to salvage, all is quiet on the prudence front from Labour they were also going to increase VAT but don't let a little thing like the truth get in the way (it's in Mandelsons memoirs before the labourites start spouting it as Murdoch spin or what ever todays buzz word from party HQ is ) :-) more deflection from Tony here. Nowhere have Labour said that they would not have gone down the path of cuts, its just as stated before it was how much, where and when that makes them different. While Tory led ones are based on nothing more than a desire to support their paymasters and ideologically led ones attacking public services, other parties were looking more at what the impact was for the country. The thing about VAT is a simple one and very very conveniently forgotten by the Tory party and their supporters. Before the election they cried wolf and called people liars when it was suggested that the Tory party (still the only party to raise on a permanent basis VAT) were going to raise VAT. As soon as Gideon parked his fat arse at number 11 the so called liars and scaremongers were proven correct. Labour and the Lib Dems would have raised VAT and the Tory party used this a major scare tactic before the election. Strange how the Tory party still rather than trying to defend their policies seem the only form of defence for them is to deflect and attack others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I see today's new policy for consideration from another of Cameron's chief policy makers is the removal of maternity benefits and a trial for removal of consumer rights. No doubt this will be dismissed by Dave (we are all in it together in Tuscany), but the fact that a leading member of teh Tory party machine such as Hilton is suggesting this shows what that party is about (and still the Lib Dems support them .........) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 31 sure start centres have closed link These were those that Cameron got irate about when it was suggested he had plans to do so - I look forward to the deflections to explain why this happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 31 sure start centres have closed Was it not the decision of the councils ? ..and clearly those *cough* labour *cough* councils have decided surestart is not one of their priorities .. or heaven forbid could they be cutting the funding for political gain? Good to see that Dave isn't allowed a holiday in Tuscany , maybe he should have gone to the socialist hotspot that is Aruba instead ? Maybe Ed should have a holiday instead of having vanity surgery , still it's not about image is it .... await the reply with 47 instances of the word "deflection" .. still at least Labours actions have eradicated the over use of the "hypocrisy" word :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 dont forget right wing Tory spin and idealogical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 28, 2011 Moderator Share Posted July 28, 2011 The entire premise is wrong. A household deficit is bad. A government deficit is not. How shameful that not only our national debate, but the pronouncements of our elected leaders, don't understand this simple point. That's not the case. Neither household debt, nor Government debt is necessarily bad, but then neither is it necessarily "good". A mortgage is not a "bad" thing - borrow money and use it to provide the essential of shelter, warmth and protection. The same could be argued, less convincingly about a car loan - borrow to provide a means of mobility. Down the scale further, borrow to buy a TV or a sofa - these are things which offer little real advantage. If you cannot pay your heating bills, because you are spending money on repaying loans for TVs, sofas, fancy cars, expensive restaurant bills, concerts and football then you've got a problem. The same applies, in a way, nationally - borrowing to fund infrastructure is not bad. borrowing in bad times and paying back in good times is not bad.....as long as over the whole cycle the thing balances out. If you borrow more than you can ever repay, you have a problem and it is most definitely bad. You either have to sell off assets - a one time only thing, and you no longer own or control things as you'd like. Privatising state assets doesn't often turn out well in the long run. Nor does foreign ownership of a country's infrastructure. And if you don't sell off assets, then your borrowing costs rise further, your currency becomes devalued, inflation runs rife. No one will keep lending you money. There comes a point where you hit the buffers. No more loans, no more bailing out. trashed econonmy, trashed lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 31 sure start centres have closed Was it not the decision of the councils ? ..and clearly those *cough* labour *cough* councils have decided surestart is not one of their priorities .. or heaven forbid could they be cutting the funding for political gain? Good to see that Dave isn't allowed a holiday in Tuscany , maybe he should have gone to the socialist hotspot that is Aruba instead ? Maybe Ed should have a holiday instead of having vanity surgery , still it's not about image is it .... await the reply with 47 instances of the word "deflection" .. still at least Labours actions have eradicated the over use of the "hypocrisy" word :-):-) good old Tony, trying (and as usul failing) to deflect and spin out of valid points. For the SureStart thing Dave said that none would close and when he was questioned about councils he said "I repeat none will close" - something of a liar eh Dave? I had to snigger at your cheap attempts of a dig there re holidays Tony. Aruba is nice, the point you try and sneak out of again is how last year he did the old publicity trick of "holiday in the UK" - followed by a few not publicised ones out of the country. He's off again now for a 5 grand holiday, fair play to him, but sort of pisses on his all in this together mantra does it not? I see you continue to defend Tory policy by mentioning Labour, good to see that you and the other Tory supporters on VT seemingly only have that as some sort of defence or justification. It's actually quite funny considering how you rode that high horse before the Tory party were in power and shouted how we should only comment about those in power. This Gvmt was elected (and supported by its new allies) on a pack of lies. Warnings about ideologically led attacks on the weaker in society, and public sector have been proven to be correct. What a shame then that its supporters show little in the way of any social conscience and feel that the only justification is to mention Labour as some sort of justification. Shows what their real priorities are I suppose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Was it not the decision of the councils ? ..and clearly those *cough* labour *cough* councils have decided surestart is not one of their priorities .. or heaven forbid could they be cutting the funding for political gain? That the lates 'buzz' thing from party HQ, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 dont forget right wing Tory spin and idealogical I make it 1 deflect 1 spin 1 idealogical so think we will have to call this round a tie :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Was it not the decision of the councils ? ..and clearly those *cough* labour *cough* councils have decided surestart is not one of their priorities .. or heaven forbid could they be cutting the funding for political gain? That the lates 'buzz' thing from party HQ, is it? or what ever todays buzz word from party HQ is ) one can't help but think of this Black Adder: No that's I think! What do you think?Try to have a thought of your own, Baldrick, thinking is so important. What do you think? Baldrick: I think thinking is so important my Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts