UBI (Universal Basic Income), a good thing - from a Conservative / Right of centre perspective.

[Swarfmonkey]

Low earning Brits would relish a Scandinavian tax system, Swedens lowest rate is 0%, increasing to 57% depending on your income.

Bet they wouldn't...

The personal allowance in the UK is £12,500. Income tax then starts at 20%
The personal allowance in Sweden is a little over the equivalent of £1500. Income tax then kicks in at 32%.

Then there's VAT (20% UK, 25% Sweden) and Duty on booze which is pretty much criminal. Thought I'd bought the whole bar a round, not just my three mates, the first time I visited.

As to NZ and Aus, the Skilled Occupations Lists for both list a hell of a lot of Med jobs.

 

[brigadoon]

America was built on capitalism, and still today it is the driving force of our economy.

Did you ever read the Jones Act?

 

[brigadoon]

The fact remains companies use every trick in the book to avoid paying any tax yet they expect the use of British infrastructure and the fruits of the education, health and justice systems anyway.

Too many big names have avoided paying their fair share. It has to end, pure and simple. It is theft from the citizens of this country pure and simple.

I could not give a hoot what America does, it's culture and form of capitalism is corrosive to society. The future for the UK is toward a more equitable system and much more along the lines of the Scandinavian countries.

There is nothing whatever wrong with legally avoiding tax, where some companies take the proverbial is in using what, at the end of the day, is false accounting so that profits earned in one country are disguised as losses and moved to another.

This will not in any way be cured by increasing direct company taxation and the companies which are not using such trickery are already paying for infrastructure, education, health and justice via thier workforces, as indeed is every company in the UK

 

[lloyd]

There is nothing whatever wrong with legally avoiding tax, where some companies take the proverbial is in using what, at the end of the day, is false accounting so that profits earned in one country are disguised as losses and moved to another.

This will not in any way be cured by increasing direct company taxation and the companies which are not using such trickery are already paying for infrastructure, education, health and justice via thier workforces, as indeed is every company in the UK

Increasing company taxation would not benefit employment figures and agree
that companies using the existing rules of moving losses from one country
to offset potential tax at another country is morally unacceptable.
These same companies seem to simultaneously offer the lowest wages they
can get away with.
Do we need them ,not really as someone else would take their place in the market .

 

[caveman]

Increasing company taxation would not benefit employment figures and agree
that companies using the existing rules of moving losses from one country
to offset potential tax at another country is morally unacceptable.
These same companies seem to simultaneously offer the lowest wages they
can get away with.
Do we need them ,not really as someone else would take their place in the market .

Would that be employment of cheap foreign labour?
Many of these company's are of no nett value to UK PLC.
Just tax their goods and services out of existence with purchase tax.

 

[lloyd]

Would that be employment of cheap foreign labour?
Many of these company's are of no nett value to UK PLC.
Just tax their goods and services out of existence with purchase tax.

How do you do that without starting a trade war?
Increase the minimum wage quickly and if they dont
like it they can leave.

 

[lloyd]

Minimum wage for over 21 should be £10hr
and it should start immediately .
It's not unrealistic in an age where middle management and above
have seen big pay rewards .

 

[Danllan]

Utter madness. A UBI of £200 a week for adults alone would be a gross annual cost of more than £550bn a year...

Yes, I've been through the figures, and it is eyewateringly expensive. However, the savings would be greater than you calculate and there would probably be a large amount of economic growth too.

I'm still minded against it, on balance, but it is wrong to say that there would be no pluses.

 

[Roger Perry]

Did you ever read the Jones Act?

Yes, in 1915, I understand why it was introduced, what is your point..?

 

[Swarfmonkey]

I'm still minded against it, on balance, but it is wrong to say that there would be no pluses.

The only pluses I can see, evidence being the recent small-scale trial of UBI in Finland, is that those in receipt of it are a bit happier. None of those involved in the trial got a job, which is why I suspect that the Finnish government decided not to extend the trial.

 

[Tim W]

I've been against this, instinctively and on the basis of several economic principles, since I first heard of it. However...

...having thought about it for some time, I'm coming around to the idea that - despite its negative aspects, of which there are not a few - it could be a net benefit to society. Mainly because I think that it would encourage a lot of people to try private enterprise, it would encourage (or force) businesses to be more competitive and it would be a very democratic way of stimulating the economy.

That written, it galls me to think of a bunch of idle B*stards getting money for doing SFA; but life is full of situations in which one has to accept some losses to achieve a net gain. My greatest concerns are that an awful lot of money would be squirrelled away, and that if UBI were brought in and then failed to succeed, it would be very, very difficult for any government to end it.

It's a bit like BPS isn't it?
We give landowners money and hope that they then use their land to produce something by private enterprise?
Of course there are always some idle b*stards that just sponge off the system ---but it could be a net benefit to society ???

 

[Agrivator]

VAT is a tax paid by the consumer. It isn't a tax which is paid by big companies on either their sales or their ''adjusted'' profits.

Yes but it is still a sales tax, which was my reply to the earlier question.

No. it is not a ''sales tax''. It is a ''purchase tax'', paid by the consumer but administered by businesses who collect the tax on behalf of HMRC.
In fact, it replaced, in about 1971, what had previously been an official ''purchase tax''.

 

[Woolless]

Utter madness. A UBI of £200 a week for adults alone would be a gross annual cost of more than £550bn a year. Net, once you've knocked off what it would replace - JSA/UC (£2.5bn), state pension (£101.3bn), housing benefit (£23.4bn), tax credits (£24.8bn) - you'd have to raise just under an additional £400bn a year in tax to cover it. To give you an idea of how much extra tax would be required, even if you doubled Income Tax, NICs, and Corporation Tax rates you'd still be £45bn short...

I'm pretty damn sure you'd end up with a lot of hacked off pensioners who paid into the system for decades, whilst others who've paid naff all in get the same as them. You'd see an awful lot of people binning work, as the effort-reward ratio would be appalling, once the taxman was done with you. Businesses that could relocate would. Those with valuable skills (particularly in the medical profession would leave for Aus and NZ in their droves) would be out the door sharpish.

I would agree that a lot of folk would pack their jobs in and we're at full employment as it is.

 

[Woolless]

The fact remains companies use every trick in the book to avoid paying any tax yet they expect the use of British infrastructure and the fruits of the education, health and justice systems anyway.

Too many big names have avoided paying their fair share. It has to end, pure and simple. It is theft from the citizens of this country pure and simple.

I could not give a hoot what America does, it's culture and form of capitalism is corrosive to society. The future for the UK is toward a more equitable system and much more along the lines of the Scandinavian countries.

I would agree that corporate taxation needs looked at but does it not need to be done on a global basis, or they'll just go offshore?

 

[Mek]

If a company makes profits in a country they should pay their taxes in that country. If they don’t they should be stopped from trading.

 

[stewart]

No. it is not a ''sales tax''. It is a ''purchase tax'', paid by the consumer but administered by businesses who collect the tax on behalf of HMRC.
In fact, it replaced, in about 1971, what had previously been an official ''purchase tax''.

There is little difference between the two, sales tax and purchase tax are essentially paid for by the end consumer.

 

[stewart]

Bet they wouldn't...

The personal allowance in the UK is £12,500. Income tax then starts at 20%
The personal allowance in Sweden is a little over the equivalent of £1500. Income tax then kicks in at 32%.

Then there's VAT (20% UK, 25% Sweden) and Duty on booze which is pretty much criminal. Thought I'd bought the whole bar a round, not just my three mates, the first time I visited.

As to NZ and Aus, the Skilled Occupations Lists for both list a hell of a lot of Med jobs.

Tax rates are higher in Scandinavia, so is the quality of life and standard of living.

Most countries have med jobs high on their list for immigration, whether there is enough requirement to take the droves you earlier predicted is another matter.

 

[Swarfmonkey]

Whether quality of life and standard of living are any better is debatable. Like the UK, it depends where you sit in the social structure. The tower blocks of Rosengård are every bit as grim as the worst London council estates.

As to Med jobs, It wouldn't take many of the more senior consultants in the NHS taking their skills elsewhere to have a significant impact upon service levels in the NHS. It's not like the country is swimming in spare consultant radiologists or consultant oncologists, is it? My cousin, a GP, emigrated to Australia a few years ago. She wouldn't come back to the UK and the NHS if you paid her double what she currently earns (which is already a whole lot more than she was earning as a GP in the UK).

 

[stewart]

Whether quality of life and standard of living are any better is debatable. Like the UK, it depends where you sit in the social structure. The tower blocks of Rosengård are every bit as grim as the worst London council estates.

As to Med jobs, It wouldn't take many of the more senior consultants in the NHS taking their skills elsewhere to have a significant impact upon service levels in the NHS. It's not like the country is swimming in spare consultant radiologists or consultant oncologists, is it? My cousin, a GP, emigrated to Australia a few years ago. She wouldn't come back to the UK and the NHS if you paid her double what she currently earns (which is already a whole lot more than she was earning as a GP in the UK).

Possibly it is debatable, although when looking at quality of life in indexes, or world happiness reports, Scandinavian countries top the lists, they also tend to have higher tax rates and are more socialistic minded, there may be a lesson in there somewhere?
I can certainly understand your Australian cousin not wanting to move back to the UK, I have lived in NZ for 20 years and like her I would not move back to the UK no matter what I was offered.