[Teofilo]

(Original post by meenu89)
More cuts. It will have to happen sooner or later anyway.

Necessary cuts spaced spaced out over a longer period of time.

The whole notion that we need to balance our books now at the expense of all else is horse****. Austerity is not sufficient to stimulate growth and, if implemented poorly, can act as a significant impediment to growth.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Teofilo)
Necessary cuts spaced spaced out over a longer period of time.

The whole notion that we need to balance our books now at the expense of all else is horse****. Austerity is not sufficient to stimulate growth and, if implemented poorly, can act as a significant impediment to growth.

Can you prove it?

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
How can you be so sure if you don't know the amount

Are you simply guessing?

Do you know even roughly? Is it in the billions?

http://www.tackletaxhavens.com/Cost_...d_Nov_2011.pdf

In the billions ($109,216m is about £69.9bn), although how much will remain after legal costs - I don't know.

[Alistair122]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
What if they did, however? Don't dodge the question by saying 'it won't happen'.

Well I think if its implausible then there's no point in considering the effects. Relatively few people would move, as to most people their life is where they live, and only the multimillionaire type rich are likely to be able to afford it anyway. The moving countries argument never stands up in reality anyway; this argument doesn't support lower taxes creating wealth, just that the wealth will be created in country X instead of country Y. Its just as good an argument to conclude that all countries in the Eurozone should increase their tax rates for the rich.Have you considered that the effect of taxing the rich more may be that they work more not less also?

[Angry Spartan]

Slightly deeper cuts and slightly lower taxes.

Having deep cuts as well as putting taxes up reminds me of two magnets repelling.

[Teofilo]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Can you prove it?

Prove what?

[Welsh_insomniac]

(Original post by Chow mein)
Although I agree with much deeper cuts much lower taxation, I have always found this argument highly unconvincing.

And not just tax cuts, the whole tax code needs to be simplified, we have extremely high administration costs in collecting tax (around 1% of tax revenue!)

I'm interested in this... but I don't have much of an idea of what our tax system is like. Could you explain a little more about it? What is complex about it? Can you think of ways in which it can be simplified?

[faber niger]

More cuts. With a guillotine preferably.

No, I don't have any especially strong opinions. We need more demand somehow though. I ticked "slightly more spending and slightly higher taxes", but I'd probably have ticked "same levels of spending and slightly higher taxes" were that an option.

[Chow mein]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Can you prove it?

How can you ask anyone to prove anything when you're claiming the rich are just going to up sticks and leave

(Original post by Welsh_insomniac)
I'm interested in this... but I don't have much of an idea of what our tax system is like. Could you explain a little more about it? What is complex about it? Can you think of ways in which it can be simplified?

Well for example you have income tax and national insurance contributions, which should really be rolled into one. I also believe council tax should be scrapped and local government receives all funding from national tax collection, really it needs to be made more clear to taxpayers what they are paying out, I believe in two ways, an income tax and VAT, no more and no less.

[rmpr97]

(Original post by jaydoh)
That's my point-they won't leave.

Yes they will. The rich will try to conserve their money even more so than a poorer person when logically it would be the other way round.

Look at France? From what I've heard alot of the rich are moving out of France due to the 75% tax rate for the rich.

And even if they don't leave they'd find a way to avoid tax i.e register themselves as a company etc.

Also, moving doesn't necessarily mean moving out of the country. They'd declare residence elsewhere and move their money elsewhere i.e Monaco, but still live here.

[cl_steele]

higher taxes? **** no.

[Bhumbauze]

Those advocating deeper cuts can only possibly live in cities, I reckon. I suppose it depends on what sort of country you want to live in - because the simple fact is, our towns and villages have been falling to absolute sh** over the last few years. The UK is straight up repulsive to live in at the moment. Hideous, dirty buildings lining hideous, dirty streets... but then of course, you won't be able to get from the cities to the towns anyway. Because the roads are also crumbling. And everyone is all for more cuts and less tax... ... ...? Woohoooo... more money in our pay cheques to spend in a ****ing toilet.

[Darkphilosopher]

(Original post by Bhumbauze)
Those advocating deeper cuts can only possibly live in cities, I reckon. I suppose it depends on what sort of country you want to live in - because the simple fact is, our towns and villages have been falling to absolute sh** over the last few years. The UK is straight up repulsive to live in at the moment. Hideous, dirty buildings lining hideous, dirty streets... but then of course, you won't be able to get from the cities to the towns anyway. Because the roads are also crumbling. And everyone is all for more cuts and less tax... ... ...? Woohoooo... more money in our pay cheques to spend in a ****ing toilet.

The problem is bureaucracy though, the public sector has become overly bloated with unnecessary staff and large inefficiencies. It's these things that need to be cut.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
http://www.tackletaxhavens.com/Cost_...d_Nov_2011.pdf

In the billions ($109,216m is about £69.9bn), although how much will remain after legal costs - I don't know.

This is one of the key problems with our current tax system. The reclamation costs are simply too high.

[thegodofgod]

Get rid of tax loopholes - they cost the taxpayer a lot!

In addition to that, get rid of benefits (e.g. tax breaks, winter fuel allowances, etc.) for those who don't need it, e.g. those who earned a final salary over £75k p.a.

[Steevee]

(Original post by thegodofgod)
Get rid of tax loopholes - they cost the taxpayer a lot!

In addition to that, get rid of benefits (e.g. tax breaks, winter fuel allowances, etc.) for those who don't need it, e.g. those who earned a final salary over £75k p.a.

Pretty sure they save the taxpayer money to be honest...

[Virtus May]

Could there be another option? Increase taxes on the rich, reduce taxes on the middle and working classes. Seeing as a lot of taxes come from the higher earning contingents of society, the amount of tax wouldn't be reduced. I'm not convinced with the notion that 'reducing taxes on the rich creates jobs', when on the contrary one could argue that reducing taxes on the middle and working classes increases spending, stimulates the economy and thus creates jobs. That way the government can spend more on reducing the deficit and/or reduce austerity measures.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Virtus May)
Could there be another option? Increase taxes on the rich, reduce taxes on the middle and working classes. Seeing as a lot of taxes come from the higher earning contingents of society, the amount of tax wouldn't be reduced. I'm not convinced with the notion that 'reducing taxes on the rich creates jobs', when on the contrary one could argue that reducing taxes on the middle and working classes increases spending, stimulates the economy and thus creates jobs. That way the government can spend more on reducing the deficit and/or reduce austerity measures.

You just said yourself that most taxed payed in this country comes from high earners (the top 1% pay 30% of all income tax), yet you want to increase taxes on them even more?

[Herr]

I picked deeper cuts and lower taxes, the lesser money the government has the less it has to do stupid things.

Personally I think there needs to be very deep cuts across the board, these cuts has to be done smartly though as you can't balance the nations' books on the poorest of the country (though you could on the scroungers). There are many things that could be cut, for starters reducing all the unnecessary redtape and looking into all that PFI contracts that essentially are overpriced junk to keep Liebour linked companies happy. Pork-barrel politics also should come to an end, the recent aircraft carrier fiasco should serve as a very good lesson (though I'm doubtful a lesson would ever be learned)

Borrowings, you can't solve a debt crisis by spending borrowed money. I rather the deficit be brought down or better yet completely eliminated or where one exist it should be minimal and under inflation. If there needs to be borrowing then it needs to be for a very good purpose and one that brings good monetary returns, in an economically viable manner. But as of now borrowings should be lowered or even eliminated as the interest itself on existing debt is going to strangle the public purse and in reality what is happening in Greece can easily happen in UK too if you start spending recklessly and stupidly like those idiots did.

Taxation, one thing to address before we go into taxation is we need to look into other aspects of the economy, why exactly is every damn thing so damn expensive in UK. It all boils down to the endless redtape that taxes has to finance. Remove them, in fact all the stuff mentioned in the Beecroft report should be implemented not shunned. Then implement what the Institute of Directors suggested. A low tax economy with lean and efficient government is the best way out of an economic crisis especially in a saturated / developed economy like UK already is.

[justmyopinions]

Other: deeper cuts, maintain tax levels.