UKIP - The Future - Volume 2

[FiF]

BJG1 said:

FiF said:

Why not the full list of EU member states with flat tax?

Apologies, who did I miss, Estonia? They're hardly a game-changer in this debate are they?

Well you missed quite a few, Poland for starters but most of the rest are Baltic states. Some of them have experienced quite reasonable growth but starting from a low base of course.

It's still valid that if you combine the notional gdp of these EU states then they are still about half of UK notional gdp.

On the other hand there are some similar sized economies to UK with a flat rate. It was a favourite in the old Soviet bloc.

What can't be argued, I think is that our tax system is far far too complicated and needs simplification, which is not popular with either the tax authorities, accountants nor various financial organisations who provide avoidance schemes.

This isn't saying that an absolute flat tax is the perfect solution but that simply relating the size and performance of an economy and then judging each country's tax system on the back of that doesn't correlate.

[Scuffers]

FiF said:

What can't be argued, I think is that our tax system is far far too complicated and needs simplification, which is not popular with either the tax authorities, accountants nor various financial organisations who provide avoidance schemes.

This isn't saying that an absolute flat tax is the perfect solution but that simply relating the size and performance of an economy and then judging each country's tax system on the back of that doesn't correlate.

and that's the bigger point.

flat may not be the best way, but it's a dam site easier and simpler.

it would also be a good solution to deter people at the top end from using corporation tax as substitute for income tax etc etc.

Sure, the liberals will squeal that the rich will pay less, but I would place a reasonable bet on the reality being somewhat different as if you remove the need for aggressive avoidance (as well as the opportunities), the net results will be higher receipts and lower costs.

[turbobloke]

Scuffers said:

FiF said:

What can't be argued, I think is that our tax system is far far too complicated and needs simplification, which is not popular with either the tax authorities, accountants nor various financial organisations who provide avoidance schemes.

This isn't saying that an absolute flat tax is the perfect solution but that simply relating the size and performance of an economy and then judging each country's tax system on the back of that doesn't correlate.

and that's the bigger point.

flat may not be the best way, but it's a dam site easier and simpler.

it would also be a good solution to deter people at the top end from using corporation tax as substitute for income tax etc etc.

Sure, the liberals will squeal that the rich will pay less, but I would place a reasonable bet on the reality being somewhat different as if you remove the need for aggressive avoidance (as well as the opportunities), the net results will be higher receipts and lower costs.

All fair and fine in both of the above, then that point about liberals - and Labour supporters - squealing enters the fray. When a significant number of people, in this case Labour supporters, want a tax to be introduced which makes high earners pay more even if less tax is raised, there's no way they'll change their spots over a taxation system where high earners pay less but more tax is raised. Envy and vindictiveness must be sated.

[steveT350C]

Interesting little piece on Sky

http://news.sky.com/story/1348776/heywood-by-elect...

[steveT350C]

Serious piece in the Telegraph on the Tory's rep in the EU, Lord Hill...

“Big picture for 2019,” he said

“The European Union is stronger and more cohesive - and more responsive to the economic and political concerns of its citizens. And our Union, by the way, remains a family of 28 Member States – including the United Kingdom.”
The unelected Tory peer’s comfortable prediction that Britain will remain in the EU regardless of reform or treaty change will dismay Eurosceptics in his party.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/11145838/Lord-H...

[turbobloke]

Wishful thinking is open to anyone but few get their wishful thinking published in national newspapers.

[brenflys777]

steveT350C said:

Interesting little piece on Sky

http://news.sky.com/story/1348776/heywood-by-elect...

If Labour keep sending Milliband to Middleton UKIP might be in with a shot there! I've not lived there for 20 years but Milliband is at the other end of the spectrum in Labour to the late and great Jim Dobson.

It's refreshing to see some reporting of an election where it's obvious UKIP are the main challenger to Labour. Doesn't really fit with the vote UKIP get Labour nonsense.

[Zod]

steveT350C said:

Serious piece in the Telegraph on the Tory's rep in the EU, Lord Hill...

“Big picture for 2019,” he said

“The European Union is stronger and more cohesive - and more responsive to the economic and political concerns of its citizens. And our Union, by the way, remains a family of 28 Member States – including the United Kingdom.”
The unelected Tory peer’s comfortable prediction that Britain will remain in the EU regardless of reform or treaty change will dismay Eurosceptics in his party.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/11145838/Lord-H...

What else could he have said? He'd have been sent straight home if he'd said anything else.

[Steffan]

turbobloke said:

Wishful thinking is open to anyone but few get their wishful thinking published in national newspapers.

Indeed most do not. Perhaps fortunately. The puff piece by the media guys directing such arrant nonsense are simply playing the electorate. I think we are entering a very changeable and interesting time in UK politics and it seems very probable that UKIP will have MP's in the House within weeks. Carsewll certainly looks pretty definite and Reckess is coming on steadily.

I am hopeful that the apparent dissatisfaction of the UK electorate with all the representatives elected in the House of every political persuasion will bring about a new approach which UKIP seems to me to be spearheading. Farage has been on the button on a lot of issues and I think we need a set of decent honest and genuine new politicians elected to the House to confirm the change to the current self serving lot. Change is needed and I am hopeful will be achieved.

Nothing is more likely to polarise the dreadful current lot into actually buckling down and admitting there are real problems in the UK and facing those problems. Currently there is no real debate just the Boys Club helping each other out daily by failing to admit or address any of these problems. A series of serious election failures in a General Election changing the political status quo could well begin that process. It is desperately needed by the unrepresented and frustrated UK electorate.

Edited by Steffan on Tuesday 7th October 19:20

[brenflys777]

Steffan said:

A series of serious erection failures in a General Election changing the political status quo could well begin that process. It is desperately needed by the unrepresented and frustrated UK electorate.

The main parties have electile dysfunction.

[don4l]

Zod said:

steveT350C said:

Serious piece in the Telegraph on the Tory's rep in the EU, Lord Hill...

“Big picture for 2019,” he said

“The European Union is stronger and more cohesive - and more responsive to the economic and political concerns of its citizens. And our Union, by the way, remains a family of 28 Member States – including the United Kingdom.”
The unelected Tory peer’s comfortable prediction that Britain will remain in the EU regardless of reform or treaty change will dismay Eurosceptics in his party.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/11145838/Lord-H...

What else could he have said? He'd have been sent straight home if he'd said anything else.

So, we are not allowed to speak the truth in the EU??

We are only allowed to toe the party line?

[Timsta]

don4l said:

So, we are not allowed to speak the truth in the EU??

We are only allowed to toe the party line?

At least they're only sent home. There was a time when people were sent to Siberia for speaking the truth.

[Steffan]

brenflys777 said:

Steffan said:

A series of serious erection failures in a General Election changing the political status quo could well begin that process. It is desperately needed by the unrepresented and frustrated UK electorate.

The main parties have electile dysfunction.

Well spotted I have corrected the typo. However with this shower in UK politics both probably apply.

[Zod]

don4l said:

Zod said:

steveT350C said:

Serious piece in the Telegraph on the Tory's rep in the EU, Lord Hill...

“Big picture for 2019,” he said

“The European Union is stronger and more cohesive - and more responsive to the economic and political concerns of its citizens. And our Union, by the way, remains a family of 28 Member States – including the United Kingdom.”
The unelected Tory peer’s comfortable prediction that Britain will remain in the EU regardless of reform or treaty change will dismay Eurosceptics in his party.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/11145838/Lord-H...

What else could he have said? He'd have been sent straight home if he'd said anything else.

So, we are not allowed to speak the truth in the EU??

We are only allowed to toe the party line?

You know full well that is a childish question. We have to play the game. One of you lot was defending Reckless for his lies to the party immediately before his defection.

There is a confirmation process for proposed commissioners before the parliament. Lord Hill is already unpopular for being a nasty capitalist. If he had said that he expected the UK to leave, he would have been rejected immediately.

[brenflys777]

Steffan said:

brenflys777 said:

Steffan said:

A series of serious erection failures in a General Election changing the political status quo could well begin that process. It is desperately needed by the unrepresented and frustrated UK electorate.

The main parties have electile dysfunction.

Well spotted I have corrected the typo. However with this shower in UK politics both probably apply.

I'd absolutely agree with you on edited or unedited versions

[steveT350C]

Completely off topic, but LBC radio are auctioning various items or events for a children's charity.

One offering is lunch for two, including wine, with Nigel Farage.

Details here.. http://www.lbc.co.uk/have-lunch-with-nigel-farage-...

Any guesses as to what the winning bid will be?

I will stick my neck out and suggest £3,200.

Edited by steveT350C on Tuesday 7th October 21:14

[JustAnotherLogin]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Well I can' speak for him but just to start with, restoring feet and inches in place of metres would be just dumb and pointless, and a referendum on building mosques would be a betrayal of our traditions of religious tolerance.

As for proportional taxation as opposed to progressive, please highlight any evidence where a country has tried this and it has worked as a justification for change. Even Farage has distanced himself from a flat rate tax, whilst proposing a two tier flat rate tax, i.e. a progressive tax

So the responses I have are essentially:

1) The crown mark on the pint is essential and should be fought for. Never mind that we can serve beer in pints, we don't have the right mark
2) We hate muslims so they shouldn't be allowed to build mosques and/or we have only practised complete religious tolerance for a century or so so we can discard it (I'm not saying that is the view of all Kippers, just the responses I have received
3) We agree with a complete flat rate tax that even UKIP and Farage have recognised was a mistake, because successful countries such as Abkhazia have such a system. Note that I have not cherry-picked a country, that was first on the list that was proposed. By all means pick another country from the list if you think it makes your case more successfully. Bolivia? Russia? Nagorno-Karabakh?

Gents, by all means say I have mis-represented your case on these issues, but frankly I have not done so deliberately and I don't need to. The responses of the last few pages from the supporters of these policies have done more than I ever could to ridicule them.

[sjn2004]

Much is made by the anti-UKIPers that come the General Election they won't have enough boots on the ground to mount a decent campaign.

Well it could actually be the reverse. Somebody who I know in the Heywood and Middleton Ward has had 5 leaflets from UKIP (only one delivered by the postman), 2 Labour leaflets (one via postman) and 1 Conservative(delivered by the postman). It seems UKIP can get a lot more boots on the ground than the traditional parties, at this by election anyway.

[TheRealFingers99]

sjn2004 said:

Much is made by the anti-UKIPers that come the General Election they won't have enough boots on the ground to mount a decent campaign.

Well it could actually be the reverse. Somebody who I know in the Heywood and Middleton Ward has had 5 leaflets from UKIP (only one delivered by the postman), 2 Labour leaflets (one via postman) and 1 Conservative(delivered by the postman). It seems UKIP can get a lot more boots on the ground than the traditional parties, at this by election anyway.

Another way of looking at it -- especially if the leaflets are identical -- is that UKIP either can't co-ordinate their leaflet drops or that they're using "professional" leaflet droppers: the 5 leaflets through the same box trick is an old stunt to finish early.

[Scuffers]

seems to me that your just being ignorant for the sake of it?

JustAnotherLogin said:

So the responses I have are essentially:

1) The crown mark on the pint is essential and should be fought for. Never mind that we can serve beer in pints, we don't have the right mark

forget beer for a minute and look at the bigger picture

why are people being prosecuted for selling goods using imperial measures?

what's the public interest in this?

JustAnotherLogin said:

2) We hate muslims so they shouldn't be allowed to build mosques and/or we have only practised complete religious tolerance for a century or so so we can discard it (I'm not saying that is the view of all Kippers, just the responses I have received

come again?

no, we don't hate Muslims, however, we do have all forms of Positive discrimination.

ie, making groups a special case, like all woman short-lists, bypassing normal planning rules for Mosques, Police not enforcing the laws because of the risk of racial sensitivities, etc etc.

JustAnotherLogin said:

3) We agree with a complete flat rate tax that even UKIP and Farage have recognised was a mistake, because successful countries such as Abkhazia have such a system. Note that I have not cherry-picked a country, that was first on the list that was proposed. By all means pick another country from the list if you think it makes your case more successfully. Bolivia? Russia? Nagorno-Karabakh?

missing the point, you don;t think our tax system needs radical reform and simplification?

you think it's right that we pay CAP etc billions to run HMRC? or that there's a whole industry of accountants etc out there rigged to shaft the system?

it;s an old adage, but a good one, use the KISS principal, (Keep It Simple Stupid!), and a flat tax regime would be a easy way to do this.

Look, I am not suggesting it's perfect, but are you going to defend what we have now were the super rich pay almost nothing along with the corporate fly-boys?

if you ask people to pay fair and easy to understand tax'es, you will have far less at the top end doing whatever it takes to avoid them and you also have a much easier time enforcing/policing it.

JustAnotherLogin said:

Gents, by all means say I have mis-represented your case on these issues, but frankly I have not done so deliberately and I don't need to. The responses of the last few pages from the supporters of these policies have done more than I ever could to ridicule them.

yes, you have, and unless you are truly stupid, you know exactly what your doing.