UK Farm Support......THE POLL!!

[stewart]

you cant take assets off people who have bought them thats theft, the same tax for everyone is perfectly fair

I would suggest you re read my post, particularly the last sentence.

 

[Cowabunga]

One way to tax fairly is to abolish income tax or to at least set it at a constant low level, say 15% for absolutely everyone, low and high earner. Then tax spending hard. The more people spend on luxury goods, the more tax they pay. The less they spend, the less tax they pay. Set VAT at zero for certain staples, as is already the case, but tax other goods far higher and use variable rates, such as currently exists for cars, with a sliding scale, to tax the big spenders more. Leave corporation tax as it currently is, although ideally 2% lower than the Irish Republic in order to give British manufacturing the same advantage that Irish companies have had for many years.


It can work. Much fairer than actually taxing earnings at a variable rate. It gives high earners and everyone more of an incentive to do better for themselves.

Any pitfalls in that?

 

[stewart]

One way to tax fairly is to abolish income tax or to at least set it at a constant low level, say 15% for absolutely everyone, low and high earner. Then tax spending hard. The more people spend on luxury goods, the more tax they pay. The less they spend, the less tax they pay. Set VAT at zero for certain staples, as is already the case, but tax other goods far higher and use variable rates, such as currently exists for cars, with a sliding scale, to tax the big spenders more. Leave corporation tax as it currently is, although ideally 2% lower than the Irish Republic in order to give British manufacturing the same advantage that Irish companies have had for many years.


It can work. Much fairer than actually taxing earnings at a variable rate. It gives high earners and everyone more of an incentive to do better for themselves.

Any pitfalls in that?

it could work. Another option could be to aolish all tax and set death duties at 100% everone starts life with the same amount FA and how they get on in life is down to their own ability and not that of their forbears

 

[Cowabunga]

it could work. Another option could be to aolish all tax and set death duties at 100% everone starts life with the same amount FA and how they get on in life is down to their own ability and not that of their forbears

That would set the economy back to the Stone Age. Capital availability is dependant to a very great extent and in the majority of cases on the security provided by existing capital and wealth.
Only an out and out Communist [with a big C] would even dream of such rubbish. We all know what almost all communist economies are like without mineral wealth……. basket cases with a very high majority of people living in what we would certainly call 'poverty'.

 

[Agrispeed]

I seem to remember a poll a few years ago, that suggested people were in favour of a 50p rate of ta for higher earners even if it didn't raise any additional revenue. Do not underestimate peoples envy.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/28/majority-support-50p-tax/

This suggests 40% support it, without any extra revenue created.

 

[DRC]

Must be different over here then, I know many farmers in my area who stubbornly refuse any form of government help, the mentality is once you take govmnt handouts your another step closer to government controlling your job.
Other than that I don't keep up with what all options farmers have here, so I'm a bit ignorant on the matter ...
I'm sure farming here is very different[/

The price of land is tied to its production potential. It’s increased returns which have driven land price increase.

If the returns have increased, shouldn't that reduce the debt?

 

[stewart]

That would set the economy back to the Stone Age. Capital availability is dependant to a very great extent and in the majority of cases on the security provided by existing capital and wealth.
Only an out and out Communist [with a big C] would even dream of such rubbish. We all know what almost all communist economies are like without mineral wealth……. basket cases with a very high majority of people living in what we would certainly call 'poverty'.

Agreed. Both exremes have serious downsides, expecting everyone to pay the same sounds fair in theory, the reality is there is a large section of society that would be unable to pay and cival unrest would ensue (remember poll tax).
As those unable to pay would be low wage earners one way round this problem is to increase their pay giving them the ability to meet their tax commitments,this policy would be self defeating.
A more logical policy would be somewhere between the two extremes with those at the higher end of the socioeconomic scale contributing more towards the costs of running society.
There are of course those that want the best of both worlds and The Boss is a prime example, capitalist policies of market forces dominating until it comes to their own personal circumstances, when the business does not pay as it cannot compete expecting handouts. Capitalise the profits and socialise the losses.

 

[stewart]

We all know what almost all communist economies are like without mineral wealth……. basket cases with a very high majority of people living in what we would certainly call 'poverty'.

Some of the worst poverty I have seen would be in the good old US of A. The bastion of the capitalist world.

 

[Cowabunga]

Some of the worst poverty I have seen would be in the good old US of A. The bastion of the capitalist world.

Yes, I agree. The two extremes get very close to one another. Just look at China and America for ‘successful’ examples.
Wherever there is great wealth it is inevitable, absolutely and mathematically inevitable, that the gap between the have and the have not is greatest. The trick that most ‘liberal’ democracies, the U.K. and most of Western Europe included, are trying to achieve, is to level that inequality out somewhat, mainly by leveraging the wealth to pull the poor up a level, rather than pulling everyone to the bottom. For the most part it works. Everything does depend on economic growth though. This does mean wealth creation, not destruction as you seem to favour in many of your historic posts.

 

[stewart]

Yes, I agree. The two extremes get very close to one another. Just look at China and America for ‘successful’ examples.
Wherever there is great wealth it is inevitable, absolutely and mathematically inevitable, that the gap between the have and the have not is greatest. The trick that most ‘liberal’ democracies, the U.K. and most of Western Europe included, are trying to achieve, is to level that inequality out somewhat, mainly by leveraging the wealth to pull the poor up a level, rather than pulling everyone to the bottom. For the most part it works. Everything does depend on economic growth though. This does mean wealth creation, not destruction as you seem to favour in many of your historic posts.

I am in favour of wealth creation, this generally leads to a trickle down effect so everyone can benefit, some more than others, not sure where you get the impression I am in favour of wealth destruction, that benefits no one.

 

[graham99]

Who says food production would stop here if subs stopped anyway. Plenty are already farming without them and i bet a lot of others will find a way when (if) they have to. I bet you will be one of them too boss when/if it comes to it

look up aquaponics, saw a vid on this yesterday and i am at a cross roads .
it looks like land farming will be having some competition from now on .

 

[graham99]

NZ imports next to nothing. But gets away with shovelling 80+% of its production onto the world market, they should be stopped and held to account

you have that so wrong .
kiwi dairy farmers import their ,borrowing ,fert, feed ,labour and tech .
most farmers in new zealeand are farming a margin, like a town business.
and we have tax free capital gains

 

[graham99]

mmmmm its world market though .

no,
it the lawyers who decide who wins in,
the so called free trade agreements

 

[graham99]

I'm not answering such a loaded question!

View attachment 693494

if you are a lefty you want free food you pay subs .
if you want capitalism ,
you will have no lawyers lobbying on your behalf,
to give you money

 

[graham99]

It's not a question of whether we should or should not continue to receieve Subsidies...

The question is if/when subs go, would we expect the govt to continue encouraging us to produce food.

NZ may have gotten rid of farm subs, but the govt still values it's farmers by protecting and backing them to produce food to feed the nation AND export as a tradable commodity. Ours is blinkered to believe no subs means we are left to get on with it, without domestic market/industry protection.

we replaced subs with lobby groups,
a very cunning plan ,
you don't have to share any money given to you .
every week we have a business saying how well they are doing ,
and then with their last word,
they ask for money from the govt

 

[graham99]

They do

tell me where .we will all move there

 

[graham99]

Life's not fair. Get over it .

and that is why we have wars

 

[graham99]

What crap
Differing tax rates are an attempt to make the world fairer. If the world was to be more fair tax rates would not be the same for everyone, it would be preferable to share all the answers land, spliting it equally with everyoine receiving "their share" although how is that fair? Who gets the most productive land and who gets the least productive? And who gets Wales?
The current tax regime takes income from the general tax payer (who can ill afford it) in weekly installments via PAYE and pays some of this via subsidy to farmers (who don't need it and don't deserve it ).

"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice you are a comrade of mine"

Life isn't fair. Get over it

the only why to have fair tax.
is for business to be taxed on gross.
the same why workers are taxed

 

[graham99]

everyone seems to have forgotten that the biggest capitalist countrys are printing money and giving it to the banks at .1 % interest rate .
which is pushing the price of house's and farms,
for the people who pay the taxs,
that back up the printed money

 

[stewart]

Everything does depend on economic growth though. This does mean wealth creation, not destruction as you seem to favour in many of your historic posts.

Subsidies do nothing towards overall wealth creation, they stagnate the industry and stifle innovation, allowing the inefficient to survive, stopping the entrepreneurs from getting a foot hold to drive the industry forward.
Unfortunately many cannot see past the brown paper envelope regularly dropping through the letter box.
As mentioned in a previous post on this thread. Welcome to groundhog day.