Posts by codejunky

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

"Because that's not relevant to the discussion of how we finance tax cuts."

Actually that is entirely relevant to your claim that not taxing one increases tax on another. You seem to think there is 'an amount' the gov rightfully gets, I say the gov would take 100%, people want to keep more of what they earn and the tax take is what both sides agree on. As a feature of this discussion with you it seems very relevant.

"I suspect we both agree that we need to give _some_ money to provide services that enable society to function - the amount of money that is required is irrelevant, except in that we need to raise approximately that much in taxes (some years will be more, some will be less)"

The amount is the problem. The gov likes to spend, the NHS likes to spend, the education system, MOD and every department of government likes to spend. Local councils like to spend. The entire structure including off the books public workers moved into the private sector like to spend. Not just on the essentials to enable society to function, but to spend. Even to our detriment they will spend because it suits them. They will borrow against the tax payer because they will tax you more later. They believe your moneys and possessions belong to them, as long as they can get away with it.

Until you can provide the arbitrary amount the rest of your beliefs about reducing tax on one increases on another doesnt work. The more they collect the more they spend. They reduce tax and they still keep spending.

"Encouraging more car use can not be an efficient use of government funds - it therefore increases the tax burden on others."

Why? The entirety of transport is a huge part of what makes your rich country with civilised society possible. Without it you would be in a much worse situation and the government would absolutely lose a lot of tax (overtaxing fuel, road tax, etc which collects more than it returns to drivers).

"Again it doesn't matter why you owe me... and tax is a paid for service, in fact it's *many* services which we pay for"

If you go to the shop and buy product/service you choose to pay them for it. I dare you to 'choose' not to pay your tax. Paying for a service and having your earnings taken by force are extremely different things. Government may 'incentivise' actions by not taxing as a mugger may 'incentivise' you dont enter a certain area.

"If you don't want to pay tax to your countries government then a) you're a selfish jerk"

Perfect response you selfish jerk. I say that because all probability says you only pay the exact amount of tax you owe and dont send the government extra? And if you wernt such a selfish jerk and in your opinion of how this money is spent, you could reduce the tax bill of everyone else. However in reality the gov would take that money and spend it on top of everything else it takes. (obviously I dont actually believe you a selfish jerk)

"b) you're free to go and opt out of society entirely"

100% as I say. But instead of eating berries people move their money off shore, use tax efficient structures and some even evade tax (at many levels of society) which of course limits what the government can take. The more they take the more moves away, especially when its seen to be unjust.

Surely from all of the above you can see why I would completely disagree with your last paragraph as completely wrong.

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

"If you owe me £11 and I say "don't worry about the pound, just give me a tenner" then I have given you a pound."

Why do I owe you? You provide a service at an agreed cost in which you say keep the change. Tax is not a paid for service 'oh just keep the change', it is money taken from you by force because someone else wants to spend it.

Again at no point have you told me what this arbitrary figure we should be paying the government (in any terms) yet claim the gov must tax others more for reducing tax on some as if there is a fixed cost of government. Government takes as much as it can get away with, what they can get away with is determined by people refusing to pay. Your example assumes some sort of choice in the transaction, this is a forced transaction where your money is taken from you by force.

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

Gonna chop your comment to make the point-

"you don't get taxed"..."then you are being given"

Tax is taking. It is removing from you. So not being taxed isnt being given. Someone not taking from you is not giving to you. I know you started with a 10% tax rate, but that is the gov taking 10%. If they dont not take they are not giving you something, they are not taking it away from you. You earned it, you worked for it, its yours and then it gets taxed.

"A tax break costs the government money"

So the interesting experiment is when the gov collects more money do they reduce tax for us all? If there is a set amount the gov should collect what is that arbitrary number? Have you any idea what it is? When they hit that figure with they give the money back?

The answer is no. They will collect more and more and demand more and more. Each department demands more and more each year. Those relying on the public money have to spend it before the end of the financial year so they can demonstrate they need the same or more from the next payout. I was on the receiving end of some of this money they were desperate to get rid of locally.

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

"Huh - it's a tax break - the reason bloody well ought to be to encourage a certain behaviour which is societally beneficial."

You would hope. It does seem to be beneficial to people to keep what they earn (I like keeping what I earn).

"Any money you give back to people in the form of *not* taxing"

That makes no sense. You are not giving back if you are not taking. If you have £10 and the tax man doesnt take it, the tax man did not give you £10. A thief is not giving to you by not stealing from you.

"otherwise be taxable costs the taxpayer, since they all need to make up the difference"

Why would it be otherwise taxable and others need to make up the difference? How much should the gov get (what is the arbitrary number?). That doesnt work, the gov wants 100% and more, people want to keep what they earn. There is no arbitrary figure the gov should get that tax payers must make up. Government is what we will pay for.

"The trick is to encourage behaviours that benefit society"

That is a whole other topic for how much of a trick that is.

"for some reason we rarely tax enough to make up for the costs of the disbenefit."

Really? Seems we over tax at least some of these (including fuel).

"And "to maintain spending" in a fictional country with two taxpayers and you invoke "NHS bad" as your straw man..."

Actually no, you missed the point. The maw can never be filled. If we maintain funding with no consequence then (in this case) the NHS doesnt improve and costs more. Not just NHS its generally a public money service issue.

"The government needs to spend money on things, that's kind of the deal we have with them"

I agree with that. They serve us and so should spend on what we want to the degree we are willing to fund it.

"and whatever they spend money on needs funding, and if they are giving that funding back to one person then they're going to have to increase the costs for the other."

No. This falls over throughout history. The gov will happily do everything, and badly, and demand more from you. The gov can spend whatever you give them and more. Just because they dont steal something from one person does not mean they must steal more from another.

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

"Well let's take the hypothetical case of a country with two tax payers.

One of whom is given a tax break of a hundred currency units."

And what is the reason not to take that money? If they didnt agree to this then (as happens through history) a revolt changes the mind of the taxer.

"That means that, in order to maintain government spending on such mundane and useless things as a health service"

And there is the logical flaw. Why maintain spending? The NHS as an example is a maw that can never be filled. At 100% taxation of the whole country it would forever demand more. No matter how useless it performs the demand is always for more. Also going back to working your arse off for an income, it belongs to you not the NHS (in this example), the NHS is supposed to be a health 'service' and we pay as much as we are willing to part with to the gov.

The sacrosanct funding of the NHS is why it was such a large purchaser of fax machines long after everyone else moved on.

"I don't believe that 100% taxation is necessary, and I rather doubt you do either."

Of course not and I didnt believe you did either, which demonstrates that the gov is only entitled to what it has rules to take, and if they take the piss people leave with their money/assets or revolt. There is no maintaining what the government believes its entitled to.

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

"That's an explicit subsidy, i.e. it's a cost to the taxpayer to pay for people's company cars."

What does it cost the tax payer for the government not taking money from the tax payer? And the car isnt just part of the income it is part of conducting business.

"I'm not saying that the lower tax is illegal, but to say that it doesn't cost tax payer money is plainly wrong"

So 100% tax on everyone otherwise its a cost to the tax payer. See how that is wrong?

"Because if it was taxed at the same rate as a person's other remuneration then the treasury would have higher income."

The treasury does not own your income. If everyone was taxed the same as the highest rate the treasury would (theoretically) have higher income. You think it costs the taxpayers because taxpayers dont pay more?

Re: The UK used to be a part of the EU

@DaveLS

"You certainly have "missed it"; perhaps if you had bothered to read the paper"

Thanks for pointing it out, I skimmed because I have a job and reading the 3 papers isnt part of it.

"I guess that instead of bothering to read anything beyond an offending title, you simply searched for a few triggers like "co2" and "uk""

Very quick skim read and search for UK. I opened the leeds link, I did mistake the EU unite for the UK unite.

"Really. You wrote that on the basis of...??? No, don't bother."

Because I didnt see (again I admit skim read) the section that accounts for the benefits against these externalities. The MMCC co2 section can be ignored as its effects and causes are still in question outside politics and extremism. The health affects and potential surrounding damage are legitimate problems, but I dont see where it balances that with a healthier and wealthier population. Again if you see such a section let me know but the 'costs' dont seem to outweigh the benefits.

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

"Of course it does - it's a (legal) mechanism to pay less tax than would otherwise be due. It's explicitly a subsidy by the treasury (i.e. tax payers)."

That is the wrong way around. The legal mechanism is to tax money which belongs to the person who earned it. To not tax what not legally taxable is not a subsidy.

To view it your way the money does not belong to you no matter how much you earn. By not paying 100% tax you are being subsidised by the treasury.

The rules are for what the government can take (by force).

Re: The UK used to be a part of the EU

@DaveLS

"It's from 2012, when the UK was a part of the EU. The UK coverage is essentially the same as France, Spain, Italy etc. Some (like Germany) get more mentions in footnotes, others fewer."

Thats fine but the graphic and text seems to leave out the UK from what I could see (I might have missed it). The only reference being the literature section mentioning a link to leeds Unite union.

"Clearly, no further comment needed, or maybe just "Hmm" as you might say."

Exactly. If they have written something severely biased as well as hopping on the latest 'fashionable trend' to make their case it doesnt bode well.

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@DaveLS

Thanks for those.

"Dresden (Becker group) 2012 study:"

Given a quick look it does seem to be biased nonsense which looks heavily at exaggerating the bad while ignoring the absolute necessity. If its the one John Robson was referring to, I dont see where it bothers with the UK only the EU and the MMCC co2 costs would be a write off in my opinion due to the problems with that theory.

"Also this on company cars:"

I stopped reading this pretty early on in the summery because of the glaring error that would suggest the same significant error throughout- "The deductions and write-offs for company cars in 8 largest markets alone cost European taxpayers €32 billion every year"

No it doesnt cost tax payers. The legal requirement to pay tax is not met therefore those criteria do not incur tax, there is none to be paid. It isnt paid by someone else, its not taxable. Using that logic we taxpayers have a huge cost because we dont all pay 100% tax.

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

"Dresden University research across the EU"

Sorry I cant seem to find it. I do expect Phil O'Sophical hits the nail on the head when it comes to cherry picking and bias. There is yet to be a viable alternative to petrol and diesel so I doubt it could be realistic in its assessment

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

"Really? You think so"

Yes without a doubt. We pay far too much for such an important resource for our lives. The government likes to take a large chunk of change from such a vital resource.

"have you costed in all the external costs that it's use generates?"

People live, civilisation exists and the fuel is vital to it. A lot of work has gone into cleaning up the emissions however government intervention created a larger problem (remember Brown pushing diesel to save the earth?)

"Drivers are heavily subsidised in this country"

I would be interested to see where this idea came from

Re: It's the cost that gets you in the end

@John Robson

"I'm looking forward to the day when petrol and diesel are appropriately taxed (i.e. MUCH higher levels than today)."

Are you insane? Fuel (I assume you mean UK) is wildly over taxed

Re: Platform

@Chloe Cresswell

"BEV - battery electric vehicle. the Mirai is an FCEV, a Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle."

Fuel cell meaning runs on hydrogen?

Re: Platform

@Chloe Cresswell

"BEVs, maybe."

You mean EV's, electric only vehicles, yup that is what I said. The head of the company saying something about expecting them to only capture about 30% of the market and various other comments.

"If Toyota thought about EVs and said no, it's weird that the Mirai's been on sale for 10 years now?"

I took a look and the vehicle seems to be hydrogen powered. Is there another version or something?

Toyota have been fairly brave and realistic from what I have seen. Instead of chasing the electric pipe dream they are looking at various options including increased efficiency of the internal combustion engine.

Re: Platform

@gecho

"Toyota is only now just starting to think about EVs."

From what I read about them Toyota thought about EV's and made the sensible decision to say no.

Re: Hold your horses!

@GStern

"Do you really think the European Commission doesn't have access to scientists and engineers who would spot a law if it was as daft as you present the kettle issue?"

No. Oddly I have about as much faith in them as other governments.

"has it not occurred to you that maybe there was a good reason for the proposal, which you have not spotted?"

So you start with they wouldnt be so stupid to do it. Then suggest maybe they know how to break the laws of physics.

"Accept that Leave was dominated by lies."

As remain was. Shockingly even with the tonne of FUD remain also had the government using the threat of the state against us.

"How about the EU regulating bananas"

Which was a true issue of making it a criminal offense with a fine and/or prison! The EU not defining new standards as you say but instead taking the existing into criminal law.

Re: Hold your horses!

@AC

"Putting aside the non-sequitur of comparing kettles to generative AI."

The point that I made to correct your assumption that a rule is good because its a rule and everything else is worse.

"Do you see now?"

Yes and my point still being correct. It isnt about the UK waiting for the EU to fumble the ball. Its about not fumbling the ball here to make it a good place for business.

"Where is the initiative? Where is the UK taking business now from the EU with its laxer laws? I don't see it happening and you didn't suggest it as a possibility."

It isnt quite limited to the UK taking business from elsewhere, but allowing development to happen which may not be possible in more restrictive countries. Maybe you dont see it happening but I assumed it as given understanding that the UK would be easier to work with the EU but also any other country in the world including where the EU rules wont let EU business.

"Perhaps there are small businesses which sell innovative jams just to the domestic market. That's fine. But I don't think pre-Brexit UK/EU standards were ever a barrier to that because it was already happening."

Nope. That is to not understand the opportunity costs. The jams thing is funny, I think it was something to do with the EU dictating what could be called jam or something just as stupid. But if you want to know domestic markets being pushed by EU regs just look at the arse kicking the EU just got over its rules against farmers. We dont know what development has been lost and costs inflicted due to higher regs.

"This was bureaucracy entirely of the UK's making and it affects just the GB market."

Thats the insanity of appeasing the scum during negotiations. This could have easily been resolved if May didnt try to keep us half in half out to appease both sides

Re: Hold your horses!

@I am David Jones

"Or are you actually suggesting that it’s the primary reason for Brexit?"

The kettle rules you agree to be daft (actually is friggin stupid on every level).

Re: To not have to apply foreign laws domestically.

@Flocke Kroes

"When the UK was part of the EU we had some say in what EU laws were and they were not foreign laws because we were part of the EU."

And now they are foreign laws. Back then they were still foreign laws of an organisation we joined.

"Now we have no say over what EU laws are"

Should we have say in US law? China's laws? Other countries? Maybe we should invade some countries to enforce our laws?

"we have to obey them to access the larger market"

No we dont. We do as we wish. If some business needs to apply export laws they can. If domestic or export elsewhere they do things correctly for that.

Re: Hold your horses!

@I am David Jones

"Re the kettle: yes, on the face of it it is daft. Is it actually a thing or just a proposal?"

I am not certain but I think the stupidity died when we left. It was too easy fodder to demonstrate the state of governance from the EU.

"But I can’t imagine that being an issue for any other eu country"

That is actually a solid argument for leave. In fact one of the primary reasons

Re: Hold your horses!

@Doctor Syntax

"Spot the straw man."

Only straw if not real. That it was a consideration at one point Made for easy pickings as to why getting out was a good idea

Re: Hold your horses!

@AC

"Hardly post-Brexit UK being the master of its own destiny, rather just waiting and hoping that EU countries fumble the ball."

Eh? Nothing to do with that at all. Any business wishing to do business with another country must make sure their exports meet the legal requirements of the importing country. Doesnt matter if it is UK, US, EU, China or anywhere. Post brexit we dont need to apply EU requirements domestically. Its pretty simple and actually does point to "the UK being the master of its own destiny" if you wish to put it like that.

"Why would they have two herds of cattle and treat one worse for domestic consumption"

Its its only for domestic consumption or export to somewhere other than the EU, why apply EU requirements? Why would the smaller domestic providers apply large global business rules for other countries? I also note the huge mistake of saying treat worse or more dangerous, which is to make the flawed assumption that a rule is good because its a rule. A good rule can be good but a rule is not necessarily good.

"It makes no sense and it's cheaper just for UK businesses just to follow the higher standard (whoever has it, although given the direction of travel it's probably the EU) and sell to both markets."

Assuming the trade is with the EU and the domestic market is small enough to prefer export market rules. Also assumes no domestic models that may work better.

Here is an example of rule stupidity. It takes the same amount of energy to boil a kettle (excluding losses from slower boiling). Should the EU decide its a good idea to limit the power of a kettle they are only increasing the amount of time to boil water, not making it more efficient. Add the loss of slower boiling and the rule would be less energy efficient. The UK could ditch said rules and have working kettles for domestic and export to non-stupid countries but export only inefficient ones for the EU if a business so wished.

Re: Hold your horses!

@elsergiovolador

"Not exactly. Tories UK wants less regulation for multinational corporations, while burdening SMEs with as much regulation as they can."

Not just the Tories. We do need better options to vote for.

Re: Hold your horses!

@AC

"But businesses that sell into the EU or offer services to it do have to follow EU law though."

That is not amazing. If you sell into any country your product/service must follow the laws of the importer. That was something I repeatedly stated back when people were arguing leave/remain.

"So the UK government gets to enact performative divergence and trumpet about how light touch the UK is (as if that were a good thing) but to UK businesses it means absolutely nothing."

Why does it mean nothing? Lets say the EU regulates so hard that development moves out of the EU. The UK doesnt need to change anything to support the businesses now pivoting to other countries.

"Was that the point of brexit?"

To not have to apply foreign laws domestically. Business selling to the EU must meet EU requirements on said exports just as they meet the differing requirements to any country their product exports to. But domestically they are not so restricted.

Re: Hold your horses!

@I am David Jones

"It could be fixed with a something like a statutory legal fiction along the lines of ‘businesses that meet the EU reqs are deemed to meet the UK reqs’. But that wasn’t the point of Brexit now, was it?"

Why? The EU wants more regulation, the UK less, what is wrong with that and that is the point of brexit. The UK doesnt have to do what the other government away from the country wants.

Re: Well

@Roland6

"What is notable is with 2008 the government decided to throw money directly at the banks"

The last equivalent situation was the 1930s. I wasnt a fan of dumping money on the banks at the time but it was about saving the currency and avoiding another great depression.

"With Covid the government bypassed the banks and directly subsidised people’s wages and thus companies. This approach seems to have cost significantly less and maintained a level of capacity in the economy to more quickly pickup (whether it did or did not is a separate discussion point)."

With covid the gov caused the crisis by abandoning science and the preprepared plans to trash the economy. Initially nobody knew anything about the virus and the assumption was a new black death. I am not sure how you think it costs less although maybe there was a hope it would. Instead its inflicted long term harm we will be paying for the foreseeable future.

@45RPM

Your analogies are interesting. So when the defector from N.Korea describes life in N.Korea do you give them equal weight with N.Korea describing paradise? When someone escapes the cult do you believe them or the cult? Do you still think- "By my argument they should be given no more than their share - and maybe none at all, depending on how bonkers their view is"

Now lets consider truly bonkers. A few conspiracy theories have turned out to be facts in the US! Give truth airtime or not because it might sound to some people 'bonkers'? You talk about brexit as a bad thing and somehow think leave advocates were bonkers. Maybe in your opinion but most of us voted leave and a few remainers seemed upset the country didnt implode as they were told it would. Accurate reporting would have swept a lot of the FUD from both sides away. It would have left very little for remain to say (single market basically) but a lot for leave to say.

Re: Well

@Roland6

"Well in the big picture CoVID cost the government significantly less than it spent bailing out the banks from the 2008 financial crisis…"

I 2008 it was to keep the economy from nosediving into depression (agree or disagree with it or would have happened). The covid splurge was to prop people up while tanking the economy. In both cases some people thought it was worth it and others not.

Re: Well

@Richard 12

"For example, there were a large number of companies that were registered as "defunct" or didn't even exist until the day they put in the claim to support nonexistent employees or contacted their friendly local Tory Minister claiming they could supply PPE from the beer cellar."

Ok. So run through the bureaucracy to try and do something you would hope was simple and easy while the masses call for your head because you aint locked down and giving away money for nothing. These are politicians we are talking about.

As with PPE contracts and such. The world wanted this stuff and the gov wanted to be in first. You remember the crying of Europe when Trump wanted the vaccine first for the US and would do whatever to get it? You remember the crying of Europe when teh US, UK and Israel got the vaccine while their gov was further behind in the queue.

My opinion is that this could have been easily resolved by not caving to the hysteria and being sensible. But when the race is to be first, all thought be damned, then its a rush job not a good job. I doubt you would be happy without a job, without pay and awaiting the approval of some gov clipboard guy sitting pretty to eventually decide you are eligible.

Re: Well

@AC

"Agree 100%. Only members of the chumocracy should be allowed to defraud the taxpayer."

For example you manage to take my comment out of context by not referring to my comment. Congrats

@45RPM

Damn, I never thought a comment could look just like someone repeatedly bashing their head against a brick wall and thinking its a miracle cure for a head ache, but you also managed to do so on a topic unrelated to doing so. You may not wanna look across the channel, you might get upset.

Re: Officials working in counter-fraud told us...

@theOtherJT

"And that, I can only assume, is entirely by design"

Bureaucracy and fiefdoms. A slow process of forms in triplicate and confusing rules requires more administrators.

@beast666

That was my first thought. That the expectation is 90% are fictitious it does sound like closer to 100% is reality. Better to use the money in something worthwhile.

Re: "Does the use of LFR have a basis in law?"

FYI not a downvoter. I dont see anything particularly wrong in your comment bar that one fix

Re: "Does the use of LFR have a basis in law?"

@AC

"After all, Rwanda will soon legally be a safe country for refugees regardless of any facts."

Economic migrants

Re: Hmm

@AC

"But that is not what the figures in the BDEW report say. Are they wrong?"

The report doesnt say any of what I said because its a page of charts to present data favourably. Your report (a page of charts) is nice but doesnt seem to invalidate what I said.

I found the fourth chart interesting that they are generating more from lignite than natural gas (I was not aware). It also looks like they have gone from exporting a lot of energy to importing a lot in 2023 with generation hitting the deck even with a sharp fall in consumption (the export balance chart).

What I do find interesting is the claims of reducing coal and nuclear, yet they import their power from Poland (coal) and France (nuclear) which is the outsourcing problem. You seem to think this is an I am right, you are wrong or visa-versa. Your charts can still be right and the public knowledge of factual events be correct.

Re: Hmm

@AC

"Not going down?"

No. Germany actually approved the 'reserve' lignite power plants to come back online to make it over this winter. Their over reaction to drop nuclear put them back on coal. And of course the de-industrialisation from green madness policy.