Forces braced for more cuts .....
Tofo, I admire your stamina, Sir!
I will be retiring at my normal time and will wake up to reality on Friday am, whatever that may be.
God help us if the apologist Republican ends up in No 10 and the Marxist in No 11. As Fraser in Dad's Army would say; "we're all doomed!".
I've just top sliced 25% off my more vulnerable UK holdings just in case the unthinkable happens.
I will be retiring at my normal time and will wake up to reality on Friday am, whatever that may be.
God help us if the apologist Republican ends up in No 10 and the Marxist in No 11. As Fraser in Dad's Army would say; "we're all doomed!".
I've just top sliced 25% off my more vulnerable UK holdings just in case the unthinkable happens.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading between the lines on ricardian's linkly above (which is to Portsmouth's Evening News)....taking a large ship out of re-fit or build isn't easy. I've done it. I've said before on here and I will say it again, the Navy needs to copy civilian offshore practices and put people onto sensible rotations. 35 days on/off.42 days on/off. And so forth. The result not to do so.. will be otherwise as we are seeing.
There is also a requirement for people to work a far more flexible hire and fire routine. Let people come in and go out as they wish...if someone really is between jobs in the civilian sector ie an electrician, and they have RN experience and suitable security vetting then they should be brought in on STC. Its not rocket science- all companies work like this offshore.
The OFO - Possible that the current attacks will trigger increased taxes if the money can be shown to have an impact ie more armed response police training. I think its nailed on for increases if JC gets in, and possibly more so than recently from PM under pressure to save her job.
What happens if these attacks become monthly, or even weekly like we have seen in Iraq/Syria and elsewhere? Don't say it cant happen. Personally, I hate to say it, but I'm expecting more-witht the resultant pressure that ratchets onto our democracy.
There is also a requirement for people to work a far more flexible hire and fire routine. Let people come in and go out as they wish...if someone really is between jobs in the civilian sector ie an electrician, and they have RN experience and suitable security vetting then they should be brought in on STC. Its not rocket science- all companies work like this offshore.
The OFO - Possible that the current attacks will trigger increased taxes if the money can be shown to have an impact ie more armed response police training. I think its nailed on for increases if JC gets in, and possibly more so than recently from PM under pressure to save her job.
What happens if these attacks become monthly, or even weekly like we have seen in Iraq/Syria and elsewhere? Don't say it cant happen. Personally, I hate to say it, but I'm expecting more-witht the resultant pressure that ratchets onto our democracy.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real solution is a higher rate of income tax and a much better fiscal regime and oversight of how it's spent. That is far too radical and is the ultimate vote loser so will never happen. The reality is that the countries where there is a higher rate of tax have a higher standard of living (for example Finland, Sweden and Norway) - and we are not prepared to accept that level of taxation or commitment to society.
Just my two pennyworth...............
Arc
Just my two pennyworth...............
Arc
Noticeable that many of the top rated nations have coolish climates, something about heat seems to p*ss people off - I know it p*sses me off!
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 6th Jun 2017 at 23:02.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW - Tax Rates Compared
Income tax by country comparison
Income tax by country comparison
Country/Income Tax Range/Average Annual Salary/Tax Rate on Average Salary
Australia/ 0-47% /AUD 77,433/ 32.5%
Canada/ 15-33% (federal) + 4 -25.75% (provincial)/ CAD 62,420 /20.5% (federal) + provincial (e.g. 9.15% in Ontario)
France/ 0-45%/ EUR 36,066/ 30%
Singapore/ 0-20% SGD 88,415 7%
Switzerland/ 0-40% (levied at federal, cantonal and municipal levels)/ CHF 86,812 e.g. 21% (Genève commune in Geneva canton)
UAE/ 0% N/A 0%
United Kingdom/ 0-45% /GBP 27,600/ 20% (basic rate after personal allowance of £10,600)
USA/ 0-39.6% (federal)+ 0-13.3% (state) + 0-3.645% (local)/ USD 57,139 25% (federal) + provincial (e.g. 5.9% in New York) + (e.g 3.645% in NYC)
This table doesn’t include other payroll deductions like National Insurance (UK) or Medicare contributions (Australia).
Tax rates in UK amongst highest, however many other countries also have more direct taxation which is not factored here.
Principle holds though that we have a large economy, we have a high tax rate and yet we don't seem to have any money for public programmes and services.
So where does it go ?
Arc
Income tax by country comparison
Income tax by country comparison
Country/Income Tax Range/Average Annual Salary/Tax Rate on Average Salary
Australia/ 0-47% /AUD 77,433/ 32.5%
Canada/ 15-33% (federal) + 4 -25.75% (provincial)/ CAD 62,420 /20.5% (federal) + provincial (e.g. 9.15% in Ontario)
France/ 0-45%/ EUR 36,066/ 30%
Singapore/ 0-20% SGD 88,415 7%
Switzerland/ 0-40% (levied at federal, cantonal and municipal levels)/ CHF 86,812 e.g. 21% (Genève commune in Geneva canton)
UAE/ 0% N/A 0%
United Kingdom/ 0-45% /GBP 27,600/ 20% (basic rate after personal allowance of £10,600)
USA/ 0-39.6% (federal)+ 0-13.3% (state) + 0-3.645% (local)/ USD 57,139 25% (federal) + provincial (e.g. 5.9% in New York) + (e.g 3.645% in NYC)
This table doesn’t include other payroll deductions like National Insurance (UK) or Medicare contributions (Australia).
Tax rates in UK amongst highest, however many other countries also have more direct taxation which is not factored here.
Principle holds though that we have a large economy, we have a high tax rate and yet we don't seem to have any money for public programmes and services.
So where does it go ?
Arc
Where does it go?
£159 Billion on pensions
£146 Billion on health care
£112 Billion on social security
£86 Billion on education
£52 Billion on debt interest
£47 Billion on Defence
etc etc (figures for FY18, including central and local govt funding sourced from ukpublicspending website)
How much is enough? Are prepared to add to the debt mountain by putting our heads in the sand for another 5 years or do we confront it head on and treat the public like adults over what is, and what is not, affordable in the future? Impossible to have a reasonable debate with the weaponisation of the NHS and blanket opposition to discussion on Welfare / immigration with Labour. Blair asked Frank Field to "think the unthinkable" which he did - and got sacked for his trouble as his conclusions were not vote-winning....
£159 Billion on pensions
£146 Billion on health care
£112 Billion on social security
£86 Billion on education
£52 Billion on debt interest
£47 Billion on Defence
etc etc (figures for FY18, including central and local govt funding sourced from ukpublicspending website)
How much is enough? Are prepared to add to the debt mountain by putting our heads in the sand for another 5 years or do we confront it head on and treat the public like adults over what is, and what is not, affordable in the future? Impossible to have a reasonable debate with the weaponisation of the NHS and blanket opposition to discussion on Welfare / immigration with Labour. Blair asked Frank Field to "think the unthinkable" which he did - and got sacked for his trouble as his conclusions were not vote-winning....
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interested table on tax rates. Which of those tax regimes generates most money to spend on defence?? (Clue: not the one with the highest rate!)
But that's by the by. As I post this I'm looking at pictures of Jeremy Corbyn addressing a rally at which groups, some dressed as suicide bombers chanted "scud scud Israel" and "gas gas Tel Aviv". We can't pretend that doesn't matter!
But that's by the by. As I post this I'm looking at pictures of Jeremy Corbyn addressing a rally at which groups, some dressed as suicide bombers chanted "scud scud Israel" and "gas gas Tel Aviv". We can't pretend that doesn't matter!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few years ago I saw an interesting article which actually said that we could stop paying NI and use the money in private healthcare instead and we would get a better and cheaper service than the overall cost of the NHS because the huge management overhead would be stripped away and many of the facilities not required full time only 'as and when' (similar to ACC in New Zealand).
The problem being that if you relied on individuals to make contributions they just wouldn't do it, so they would have to be deducted at source and the argument over taxation and stealth tax would rage all over again.
Also the Government sees NI as part of the overall Tax revenue and doesn't want it 'ring fenced' to one particular area as at the moment they use it to fund all sorts of nefarious ideas rather than allocating it to Healthcare and Pensions as it should be.
No one seems interested in the user or the end game, only the political capital that can be gained from statistics and personal attacks........ if Labour succeed tomorrow then we won't see any benefit for a long time (if ever) and ultimately a huge cost dumped on us in the longer term. If the Tories get in then you won't see any benefit for a long time (if at all), probably further reductions and no increased cost in the long term (still nothing passed on to the taxpayer or patients).
re: Frank Field - absolutely. Not the first time I've seen that scenario played out.
<rant on>The root question is what sort of society do we want ??, a higher taxation regime but where we have good solid public services and infrastructure (and quality of life for many), or a low tax regime where Public services and infrastructure is done on the cheap and you are OK if you have a bit of spare cash to pay and fill the gap for yourself ??, if you have no spare cash you have to wait in the queue ?
I'm lucky, I could pay another couple of pence in income tax on the £ and it wouldn't hit me terribly hard, most people could probably afford another penny but if we went down that route the cash would have to be spent properly (wisely ?) - and that is where the system fails - every time.
A referendum on this issue would be much more satisfying than a BREXIT one..............not that it'll ever happen of course. And the risk with this approach is that most people don't see Defence as a high priority, probably it would see a massive reduction, because most people don't see the big Defence picture. Money on Defence is not just Tanks and Aircraft but is jobs. Building, Planning and supporting the platforms, earnings from foreign sales, local jobs on local facilities and the 'onward spend' in the local area (shops and amenities being one key area).
The reality is that everyone wants everything and they want it NOW, but they don't want to pay for it in Tax rises.
The two are just not compatible. <rant off>
Arc
The problem being that if you relied on individuals to make contributions they just wouldn't do it, so they would have to be deducted at source and the argument over taxation and stealth tax would rage all over again.
Also the Government sees NI as part of the overall Tax revenue and doesn't want it 'ring fenced' to one particular area as at the moment they use it to fund all sorts of nefarious ideas rather than allocating it to Healthcare and Pensions as it should be.
No one seems interested in the user or the end game, only the political capital that can be gained from statistics and personal attacks........ if Labour succeed tomorrow then we won't see any benefit for a long time (if ever) and ultimately a huge cost dumped on us in the longer term. If the Tories get in then you won't see any benefit for a long time (if at all), probably further reductions and no increased cost in the long term (still nothing passed on to the taxpayer or patients).
re: Frank Field - absolutely. Not the first time I've seen that scenario played out.
<rant on>The root question is what sort of society do we want ??, a higher taxation regime but where we have good solid public services and infrastructure (and quality of life for many), or a low tax regime where Public services and infrastructure is done on the cheap and you are OK if you have a bit of spare cash to pay and fill the gap for yourself ??, if you have no spare cash you have to wait in the queue ?
I'm lucky, I could pay another couple of pence in income tax on the £ and it wouldn't hit me terribly hard, most people could probably afford another penny but if we went down that route the cash would have to be spent properly (wisely ?) - and that is where the system fails - every time.
A referendum on this issue would be much more satisfying than a BREXIT one..............not that it'll ever happen of course. And the risk with this approach is that most people don't see Defence as a high priority, probably it would see a massive reduction, because most people don't see the big Defence picture. Money on Defence is not just Tanks and Aircraft but is jobs. Building, Planning and supporting the platforms, earnings from foreign sales, local jobs on local facilities and the 'onward spend' in the local area (shops and amenities being one key area).
The reality is that everyone wants everything and they want it NOW, but they don't want to pay for it in Tax rises.
The two are just not compatible. <rant off>
Arc
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if Labour's tax raising somehow massively exceeded expectations, what of it... Corbyn doesn't believe in and wouldn't use our nuclear deterrent, demonstrated at RAF Waddington describing drones as an obscenity and called for them to be banned. He personally stood bail to help stop the extradition of an IRA suspect to Germany and consistently displayed contempt for our forces. Why would anyone suppose he would spend any tax money raised on defence?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW - Tax Rates Compared
Income tax by country comparison
Income tax by country comparison
Country/Income Tax Range/Average Annual Salary/Tax Rate on Average Salary
Canada/ 15-33% (federal) + 4 -25.75% (provincial)/ CAD 62,420 /20.5% (federal) + provincial (e.g. 9.15% in Ontario)
This table doesn’t include other payroll deductions like National Insurance (UK) or Medicare contributions (Australia).
Arc
Income tax by country comparison
Income tax by country comparison
Country/Income Tax Range/Average Annual Salary/Tax Rate on Average Salary
Canada/ 15-33% (federal) + 4 -25.75% (provincial)/ CAD 62,420 /20.5% (federal) + provincial (e.g. 9.15% in Ontario)
This table doesn’t include other payroll deductions like National Insurance (UK) or Medicare contributions (Australia).
Arc
Canadian income tax rates are actually quite similar to ours: around 32% of a $ 120K income compared to about 31% of £ 68K here, i.e. lower than 'scandy' countries (around 40% of SEK 770K for example), yet they achieve similar quality of life scores to said scandies. Finlands tax rates are a little lower than Sweden, more like ours it seems.
My point being that quality of life is, in my opinion, probably more about cool climates, wide open spaces, and relative under crowding, than taxation rates.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Arc
Except there is a wealth of evidence that higher rates of tax lead to reduced tax take (ie the actual money that comes in).
Between 1974 and 1979 the top rate of tax was 98% - It is no coincidence that that coincided with the government being so short of money that it had to get a bail out from the IMF. And my recollection was that public services weren't that great.
Counter intuitive as it seems the best way to increase tax take is to reduce tax rates. Less of more economic activity pretty much always turns out to be greater than more of less economic activity.
EG
The real solution is a higher rate of income tax
Except there is a wealth of evidence that higher rates of tax lead to reduced tax take (ie the actual money that comes in).
Between 1974 and 1979 the top rate of tax was 98% - It is no coincidence that that coincided with the government being so short of money that it had to get a bail out from the IMF. And my recollection was that public services weren't that great.
Counter intuitive as it seems the best way to increase tax take is to reduce tax rates. Less of more economic activity pretty much always turns out to be greater than more of less economic activity.
EG
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad that my General Election thread was blatted..in a way. I'm sat watching the polls and its looking a bit grim for PM May...but looking grimmer for the UK really.... we are so divided now.
Labours Armed forces front bench team are who again?
Good night.
Labours Armed forces front bench team are who again?
Good night.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK bands are as follows:
£0 - £8,164 = 0.0%
£8,164 - £11,500 = 12.8% (NI + pension)
£11,500 - £45,000 = 32.8% (standard rate tax, NI + pension)
£45,000 - £145,000 = 42.0% (higher rate tax, lower rate NI, no more pension)
£145,000+ = 47.0% (additional rate, plus lower rate NI)
Note: between £100k-£123k it effectively becomes 62.0% as the tax-free allowances are tapered away
These figures are, of course, then "adjusted" by a variety of allowances (eg for pensions) and tax-credits
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Laffer Curve - very simplistic and probably wrong - the rich like it as it helps move the tax burden from them to the middle & lower classes
"In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a paper called "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates'. This paper considered the impact of a stylized reduction of 10% in the then existing marginal rate of federal income tax in the US (for example, if those facing a 25% marginal federal income tax rate had it lowered to 22.5%). Unlike earlier research, the CBO paper estimates the budgetary impact of possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies, that is, it attempts to account for how reductions in individual income tax rates might affect the overall future growth of the economy, and therefore influence future government tax revenues; and ultimately, impact deficits or surpluses. In the paper's most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lost revenue from the lower tax rate would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. In other words, deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter. Through increased budget deficits, the tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy will be paid for—plus interest—by taxes borne relatively evenly by all taxpayers.[
"In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a paper called "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates'. This paper considered the impact of a stylized reduction of 10% in the then existing marginal rate of federal income tax in the US (for example, if those facing a 25% marginal federal income tax rate had it lowered to 22.5%). Unlike earlier research, the CBO paper estimates the budgetary impact of possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies, that is, it attempts to account for how reductions in individual income tax rates might affect the overall future growth of the economy, and therefore influence future government tax revenues; and ultimately, impact deficits or surpluses. In the paper's most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lost revenue from the lower tax rate would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. In other words, deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter. Through increased budget deficits, the tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy will be paid for—plus interest—by taxes borne relatively evenly by all taxpayers.[
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Chancellor - the now-immoveable Spreadsheet Phil - will be looking for cuts to fund more money for the NHS and teaching - it's their only hope of winning the next election now. I'm pretty sure that defence will take a hit - remains to be seen if they just stretch programmes (F-35, Successor, MBT), mothball (the carriers) or cut (manpower, F26, P-8)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Times sketchwriter Patrick Kidd writes...
The Times Posted at 9:53
It had been a long and difficult night for Mrs May.
The Times Posted at 9:53
Theresa May spread out the map of Northern Ireland on the cabinet table. 'So let me see if I’ve got this right,' she said to Nickanfi, her double-headed chief adviser. 'The green bits are held by Sinn Fein?'
Nickanfi nodded and hissed a little. 'And the reddish areas belong to our new friends and allies, the DUP, on whom our stronganstable leadership depends?' Another nod.
Then Mrs May saw a large blue area on the map. 'Aha,' she said. 'And I suppose this is where all the Conservative MPs are to be found?' Nickanfi cleared their throats. 'Not quite, prime minister,' they said. 'That’s Lough Neagh.' Nickanfi nodded and hissed a little. 'And the reddish areas belong to our new friends and allies, the DUP, on whom our stronganstable leadership depends?' Another nod.
It had been a long and difficult night for Mrs May.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since I'm getting good results at this old political speculation game...here's how it gonna go...
Either,
TM will do whatever it takes to get the Queen's Speech voted thru, then the next 18 months will just be brexit negotiations...anything REMOTELY resembling tricky domestic legislation will be unceremoniously dropped kicked down the road and into the long grass for future governments to deal with. And that includes non-legislative actions (like Budgets, which will be as bland as ****)
Or,
The tory back benchers will shaft her in the next fortnight, she will quit and we are all back to the ballot box...with pretty much the same outcome a forgone conclusion.
Either way, since this is about the forces and more cuts, you can expect any difficult spending decisions to kicked down the road as well. Delays and procrastination will be de rigeur.
You heard it here first
Either,
TM will do whatever it takes to get the Queen's Speech voted thru, then the next 18 months will just be brexit negotiations...anything REMOTELY resembling tricky domestic legislation will be unceremoniously dropped kicked down the road and into the long grass for future governments to deal with. And that includes non-legislative actions (like Budgets, which will be as bland as ****)
Or,
The tory back benchers will shaft her in the next fortnight, she will quit and we are all back to the ballot box...with pretty much the same outcome a forgone conclusion.
Either way, since this is about the forces and more cuts, you can expect any difficult spending decisions to kicked down the road as well. Delays and procrastination will be de rigeur.
You heard it here first
Well folks, the political / economic realities are soon gonna bite! Around half the UK voting population have shown that they would prefer the seductive promises of the present Labour manifesto.
The Tories will have to rake in every penny in the budget to meet a fraction of the spending required to satisfy a majority of the voting population in the near future. Military spending will be cut to the bone. The Tories will be keen to stay on best terms with the USA and so, purchase and involvement in hi-tech projects will continue, and commitment to 2% spending will be upheld although, every accounting method available will be used to meet that figure with minimum £ spend. 
I suggest that all non-essential capabilities will be lost. First to go are likely to be the carriers. As I have said before, they are not an essential capability and, the F35 buy would still be an essential asset to the RAF. Just my opinion.
OAP
The Tories will have to rake in every penny in the budget to meet a fraction of the spending required to satisfy a majority of the voting population in the near future. Military spending will be cut to the bone. The Tories will be keen to stay on best terms with the USA and so, purchase and involvement in hi-tech projects will continue, and commitment to 2% spending will be upheld although, every accounting method available will be used to meet that figure with minimum £ spend. I suggest that all non-essential capabilities will be lost. First to go are likely to be the carriers. As I have said before, they are not an essential capability and, the F35 buy would still be an essential asset to the RAF. Just my opinion.
OAP