Joe is currently giving serious consideration to major US tax reforms and hikes - which are likely to have major knock-on consequences for the UK and EU economies.

Trillions of dollars need to be raised to pay for Covid and the President won't allow US major corporations to continue avoiding tax, through offshore and dubious schemes.

Facebook, Google, Microsoft etc. - have been paying virtually no tax, with havens (such as the Republic of Ireland - with 700 US companies domiciled there) benefiting.

More expensive computers and iPhones will result here, but it's important that the UK boxes clever - and adapts to the new US regime by changing its own methods of revenue gathering.

To ensure the avoidance of another Brexit-like hit on the City of London. In addition to (as a simple example) UK consumers now having to pay VAT, customs duties and extra delivery costs - on their internet purchases.

Soon the Chancellor will be tasked with paying for the c£1 billion - per DAY - cost of Brexit, and will do well to plan a course that doesn't clash with US initiatives. Whilst reducing our burgeoning National Debt.

Margrave wrote:


Soon the Chancellor will be tasked with paying for the c£1 billion - per DAY - cost of Brexit, and will do well to plan a course that doesn't clash with US initiatives. Whilst reducing our burgeoning National Debt.

Don't forget the £251 billion (and counting) cost of the lockdown you are such a fan-boy of as well Barney. At least with Brexit it is possible we will make some money in the future.

The cost of lockdown has been the biggest pissing-it-up-the-wall error in history.

amp.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/22...omy-251bn-study-says

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bu...ugh-commons-19952951


Sunak's next move is absolutely critical.

And he could even introduce domres CGT - and perhaps an NHS no longer free.


Biden will save those earning under $400k.

One wonders what incentives might be given to taxpayers here, or were furloughs enough


With regard to lockdown, I completely concur with the WHO view; they're the experts.

It can be an effective short-term tactical strategy - as accepted by most countries.

Lockdown has many versions; many keyboard warriors over-generalise


cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/23330.jpeg


Few territories (certainly in Europe) ignore this valuable and flexible ploy

Not a long-term intervention, but favoured by the majority in numerous scenarios

Margrave wrote:


With regard to lockdown, I completely concur with the WHO view; they're the experts.

It can be an effective short-term tactical strategy - as accepted by most countries.

Read this really slowly Barney: I don't disagree. The WHO contains experts on epidemiology and what can slow infecton rates. However, when you do this through lockdowns, there is a COST financially and in lives. It may also save lives, of course, from the disease.

The QUESTION is: is Covid lethal enough to justify the very high cost of using sustained lockdowns? Might more harm and lives be lost by doing so than taking a less extreme approach to lessen Covid deaths?

The WHO do NOT have an opinion on this Barney; it is NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM.

So stop telling me what "experts" think. I know that some scientists think lockdowns will slow the spread of Covid and that some don't.

WE ALL DO.

Margrave wrote:
www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bu...ugh-commons-19952951


Sunak's next move is absolutely critical.

And he could even introduce domres CGT - and perhaps an NHS no longer free.


Biden will save those earning under $400k.

One wonders what incentives might be given to taxpayers here, or were furloughs enough


With regard to lockdown, I completely concur with the WHO view; they're the experts.

It can be an effective short-term tactical strategy - as accepted by most countries.

It’s not just WHO it’s the WEF.

Wyot wrote:
The WHO do NOT have an opinion on this Barney; it is NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM


Actually they do - please read it (the section about lockdowns), in this link from their website.


www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-im...ckdowns-and-covid-19



Lockdowns can 'bring economic life to a full stop' says the WHO - showing its awareness of all the consequences.

Good and bad. That's the advice the WHO provides - to the world's governments, on behalf of the United Nations.

I think it would be fair to introduce higher taxes for those on higher incomes (£50,000+). Many of them having been living on benefits of £2500+ a month furlough for over year, compared to the £75 job seekers allowance that normal unemployed people get. Someone has to pay for it and the current system of more and more economic growth, higher population and more consumption is not sustainable. We are all like lemmings heading towards the cliff, with this ridiculous system. I include myself in this, I don't need any more money, I can't take it with me, I'd rather use it to build a better society. In the 80s, whilst the uk were paying relatively low tax, making houses more and more out of the reach of young people, people getting fatter and fatter, Japan were building world class rail systems, still way ahead of uk rail systems today.

Margrave wrote:
Wyot wrote:
The WHO do NOT have an opinion on this Barney; it is NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM


Actually they do - please read it (the section about lockdowns), in this link from their website.


www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-im...ckdowns-and-covid-19



Lockdowns can 'bring economic life to a full stop' says the WHO - showing its awareness of all the consequences.

Good and bad. That's the advice the WHO provides - to the world's governments, on behalf of the United Nations.





As ever you misread & misunderstand.

In this article the WHO says they hope Governments use lockdowns (if they do) in the best way based on "local conditions". Well obviously, we all do. They also - as you say - point out how destructive such measures are.

In other words, the WHO says exactly what I have always said and have said throughout this thread.

You are effectively quoting me back at me as a "gotcha"...There surely must be better ways for you to spend your weekend?

The WHO takes no position on how specific Governments in specific situations should respond. They are not prescriptive.

Why would they? This is a public policy decision.

Barney I really cannot understand why you bother posting here. We all know that early lockdowns can slow the spread of infectious diseases, hopefully until vaccines are found to negate unpleasant consequences. We all know that. We all understand that. For God's sake go elsewhere.

robbiex wrote:
I think it would be fair to introduce higher taxes for those on higher incomes (£50,000+). Many of them having been living on benefits of £2500+ a month furlough for over year, compared to the £75 job seekers allowance that normal unemployed people get. Someone has to pay for it and the current system of more and more economic growth, higher population and more consumption is not sustainable. We are all like lemmings heading towards the cliff, with this ridiculous system. I include myself in this, I don't need any more money, I can't take it with me, I'd rather use it to build a better society. In the 80s, whilst the uk were paying relatively low tax, making houses more and more out of the reach of young people, people getting fatter and fatter, Japan were building world class rail systems, still way ahead of uk rail systems today.

I think it would be "fairer" if entities such as Amazon were compelled to start paying tax rather than increasing my already high taxes. But I am a selfish bastard, obviously.

On a practical note is hitting the millions of smaller employers a great idea currently?! That won't do the unemployed or low-paid much good...

Wyot wrote:
The WHO do NOT have an opinion on this; it is NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM


My posts simply point out complete falsehoods - such as the above.

By highlighting links which show this - the actual opinion, in this case.

Absolutely Barney and please take them elsewhere; changing names and URL's do nothing.

Wyot wrote:
robbiex wrote:
I think it would be fair to introduce higher taxes for those on higher incomes (£50,000+). Many of them having been living on benefits of £2500+ a month furlough for over year, compared to the £75 job seekers allowance that normal unemployed people get. Someone has to pay for it and the current system of more and more economic growth, higher population and more consumption is not sustainable. We are all like lemmings heading towards the cliff, with this ridiculous system. I include myself in this, I don't need any more money, I can't take it with me, I'd rather use it to build a better society. In the 80s, whilst the uk were paying relatively low tax, making houses more and more out of the reach of young people, people getting fatter and fatter, Japan were building world class rail systems, still way ahead of uk rail systems today.

I think it would be "fairer" if entities such as Amazon were compelled to start paying tax rather than increasing my already high taxes. But I am a selfish bastard, obviously.

On a practical note is hitting the millions of smaller employers a great idea currently?! That won't do the unemployed or low-paid much good...

I agree about Amazon, but I was thinking about slightly increasing employee's salaries at the 50K+ level. Employees wouldn't be affected, they don't pay income tax. They usually pay themselves's the minimum salary about that doesn't incur tax (about £11,000), and then take the rest as dividends at 6% tax. Would people flood out of the country if they had to pay say 3-4% more tax, and have a couple less lattes per week. Highly doubtfull considering what an upheaval that would be.

robbiex wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]robbiex wrote:


I agree about Amazon, but I was thinking about slightly increasing employee's salaries at the 50K+ level. Employees wouldn't be affected, they don't pay income tax. They usually pay themselves's the minimum salary about that doesn't incur tax (about £11,000), and then take the rest as dividends at 6% tax. Would people flood out of the country if they had to pay say 3-4% more tax, and have a couple less lattes per week. Highly doubtfull considering what an upheaval that would be.

Do you mean employers wouldn't be affected rather than employees by salaries for those on 50k plus in terms of paying income tax? But who would be paying the increased salaries? - the employers at a time of huge financial uncertainty. May have misunderstood (my Sunday lunch involved wine!) but don't get it Robbie...

Wyot wrote:
[quote]robbiex wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
robbiex wrote:


I agree about Amazon, but I was thinking about slightly increasing employee's salaries at the 50K+ level. Employees wouldn't be affected, they don't pay income tax. They usually pay themselves's the minimum salary about that doesn't incur tax (about £11,000), and then take the rest as dividends at 6% tax. Would people flood out of the country if they had to pay say 3-4% more tax, and have a couple less lattes per week. Highly doubtfull considering what an upheaval that would be.

Do you mean employers wouldn't be affected rather than employees by salaries for those on 50k plus in terms of paying income tax? But who would be paying the increased salaries? - the employers at a time of huge financial uncertainty. May have misunderstood (my Sunday lunch involved wine!) but don't get it Robbie...

My point is that employers don't pay income tax. If they are directors of companies or self-employed, then they usually pay themselves a very small salary (the personal allowance around £11,000), and take the rest of their profits as dividends as 6% corporation tax. No one would be paying increased salaries, I'm not advocating for increasing salaries. This is not a time to increase salaries.