We need more taxes from those with wealth: there is no other option available to a future government in need of additional funding
They’re screwing as much out of the general population as can be squeezed out. That is, they’re already run out of other peoples’ money. Thus the hunt for a new source – instead of the obvious why not spend better?
Government needs to learn to spend less than it steals.
Can you think of any government throughout history that did that, John?
Yes, but not without cutting off heads or similar.
@Boganboy
Didn’t the kiwi’s manage something like that in the ’80’s or ’90’s? Unfortunately, the swamp looks like it’s swept back in, even deeper than it was before.
The swamp always attempts to return, which is why the bastards should be prosecuted good-and-hard for their crimes and corruption, including the confiscation of their ill-gotten gains.
How else do you think every congressman and senator becomes a multi-millionaire. It ain’t because of the salaries they receive, it’s because of the graft they commit.
We won’t need so much government spending when we rightsize the UK population.
Spud has an article about how Jo “The Fox Killer” Maugham has had a ‘resounding victory’ over HMRC on how it taxes private equity buyout funds and indeed if you were to read what’s written on The Good Law Project website you’d think this was the case:
“HMRC has now conceded the key argument raised by Vince and Good Law Project, accepting that the money managers receive from buyout funds – known in the trade as their “carried interest” – “would be taxable as trading income in the hands of UK tax resident individuals. HMRC would expect such individuals to file their self-assessment returns accordingly.””
Turns out though that this is bollocks as what HMRC actually said was:
“In circumstances where carried interest is generated from an underlying fund which is carrying on a trade, that carried interest would be taxable as trading income in the hands of UK tax resident individuals. HMRC would expect such individuals to file their self-assessment returns accordingly.”
And it’s the “which is carrying on a trade” bit which is key. As HMRC for the most part don’t think that the buying and selling of a business in the way most private equity firms operate amounts to a trade. Maugham is misquoting what HMRC say by leaving out the first part of the sentence and so changing its meaning.
HMRC conceded nothing. In the letter which HMRC wrote to The Good Law Project, they make clear that there is no ‘sweetheart deal’, no blanket concession and no extra-statutory treatment. Their position remains exactly as it was prior to the ‘challenge’.
Maugham’s co-conspirator in this challenge to HMRC is none other than Dale Vince. HMRC finish their letter by suggesting:
“Finally, if Mr Vince is truly concerned with tax collection, HMRC respectfully suggests that he should reconsider the Proposed Challenge. For the reasons given, it lacks any legal merit. Furthermore responding to it is using up substantial amounts of scarce resources which could otherwise be deployed in service of HMRC’s statutory function of collecting tax.”
“Can you think of any government throughout history that did that, John?”
Almost all British governments between the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War.
Murphy and Maugham:
Both having a background in tax avoidance, in Maugham’s case egregious and unacceptable avoidance (Murphy not being clever enough for that level of theft from the public purse). Each utterly repellent as an individual and, as a combination, pure cvntish evil.
But didn’t he say governments could just print money for extra funds without any downsides whatsoever?
:@pils – that’s so last week – when he was the worlds greatest authority on MMT. As usual he fell out with other MMTers and he fell back on MOAR TAX where he feels most comfortable. It also helps his massive inferiority complex about others more successful them him.
Yes he has said exactly that. But just like you and me splurging on the credit card without limit, at some point somebody is going to ask “Where did all the money go”? followed shortly by “How will sir be paying that back with interest?”
Money printing goes on the national debt, which is essentially a proxy for “Future taxes” and the interest on that debt as well. All of this has to be paid for and if you find that your monthly interest payments exceed your monthly income, then you’re bankrupt aren’t you?
Might be a very big bankruptcy (or a small one with lots of zeros on the end), but bankrupt you surely are as countries from Argentina to Zimbabwe have discovered to their hearts lament. Even if you get out of bankruptcy, it’s very doubtful that anyone will lend you money except at very punitive interest rates, so you end up having to use another currency by proxy (usually US Dollars), which is an expensive way of doing business.
So yeah. Spud does say that you can print money without consequence AND he’s an idiot if he actually believes that (rather than just says it for the column inches and virtue signalling).
Andrew C, hope you dont mind but I’ve cribbed your post and but it on Murphys blog
If you look at government money, including debt, as tokens exchangeable for goods & services at some point in the future, the whole concept depends on there being future goods & services to exchange them for. He seems to be doing his best to ensure there won’t be.
We have an idiot on our parish council (PARISH COUNCIL!!!!) who insists that we can “borrow without limit”. To what end I’m not sure but he also insists that we (the PARISH COUNCIL) buy and build homes for social rent.
@JGH – the correct answer to idiots like that is “Go for it tiger”.
Problem is, given the lack of fiduciary responsibility in the modern world, he might fight some bloody institution stupid enough to lend him the money with no collateral other than the good name of the Parish Council and the signature of duly elected officials.
The modern world is a fools paradise.
I recall reading an article in The Guardian (I think) lambasting Thatcher’s erroneous Hayekian grasp of economics (debts must be paid off etc) because she was a woman, and that this colored her understanding of monetary matters as she was treating the nation like running a household?!
What she apparently didn’t understand is that the government can print as much money as it likes and therefore cannot go bust.
This is how I understood economics when I was 8 years old.
Did the Covidcaust lead to an increase in IHT receipts?
If so, the virus/medics deserve a vote of thanks from HM Treasury.
Stiv, is the post still there?
he might fight some bloody institution stupid enough to lend him the money with no collateral other than the good name of the Parish Council and the signature of duly elected officials.
It was not so much the ease of finding them but actually being constantly pestered by them in an analogous situation back in 2007 that raised my doubts about the UK finance industry & spurred me into leaving your country for ever. Not a move I’ve regretted. Recent newspaper reports would seem to indicate the morons are still running it. As they are the country. I’m only surprised it’s survived, notionally intact, for so long. But not much longer I fear.
Comments are closed.