Am I a tax avoider if I ride a bicycle instead of driving a car?
If you’ve bought it through a cycle to work scheme, then yes. If you’ve bought it in the normal way, then no.
Am I a tax avoider if I ride a bicycle instead of driving a car?
It's still wrong in this specific case because there's a huge allowance to earn interest in general savings accounts without paying tax. Hardly anyone would earn sufficient interest to have to ever pay the tax in it anyway - it just so happens that the accounts are still ISAs anyway. Abolishing the ISA allowance and also abolishing the normal tax free allowance would be required to generate any tax from most people's small cash reserve. Calling the interest allowance tax avoidance is delusional. None of this has any practical effects anyway because I'm advocating tax increases based on the money they would raise, so this one wouldn't even be considered. Some people will spout any old rubbish though in the name of wanting good public services, but refusing to pay for them.Ah, I suppose if you use that definition...personally I'd call it avoidance if you avoided tax the Government really wanted you to pay, but not if you take advantage of a scheme the Government promotes, which is more the Government saying that the tax is not due (and indeed the personal allowance on savings has been whacked right up, so it isn't due on any savings for most people).
It is indeed utterly crazy.Trying to say someone can't advocate tax rises because they have a stocks and shares ISA is a ridiculous thing to say.
I think this should read ""Question is what percentage of people would obey it a second time?"We couldn't really afford the first lockdown.
But the government will order it out of panic, just like the first time.
Question is whether people will obey again.
We don't need unlimited borrowing though. The current costs mean that the extra borrowing is only a small proportion of GDP. It could grow significantly, and GDP could fall, and the bond market would still have confidence in British bonds. In particular, almost all rich countries are running big deficits and piling on the debt. There isn't enough German or Dutch debt for everyone to buy that. There will continue to be a market for British and American bonds even with hundreds of billions more in borrowing.Yes, if we’re willing to accept one or both of the following, over the next 5 years:
i) A burst of high inflation
ii) Sovereign default, which could well be coordinated internationally (‘our hospitals and schools are desperate for investment, so why are we paying so much of our tax revenue in interest to greedy bankers?!)
Otherwise, no. If unlimited borrowing was consequence-free, someone would have done it already and not been booted out at the ballot box, or by coup, shortly thereafter.
Yes, if we’re willing to accept one or both of the following, over the next 5 years:
i) A burst of high inflation
ii) Sovereign default, which could well be coordinated internationally (‘our hospitals and schools are desperate for investment, so why are we paying so much of our tax revenue in interest to greedy bankers?!)
Otherwise, no. If unlimited borrowing was consequence-free, someone would have done it already and not been booted out at the ballot box, or by coup, shortly thereafter.
We don't need unlimited borrowing though. The current costs mean that the extra borrowing is only a small proportion of GDP. It could grow significantly, and GDP could fall, and the bond market would still have confidence in British bonds. In particular, almost all rich countries are running big deficits and piling on the debt. There isn't enough German or Dutch debt for everyone to buy that. There will continue to be a market for British and American bonds even with hundreds of billions more in borrowing.
I agree it certainly won't last forever. I was willing to bet that it would last just long enough for us to get the deficit back down, a year or so. In particular, though, now, I agree that because the government have delivered so appallingly our economy will take a much larger hit than the EU average. This will depress GDP much more than in other rich countries and the incompetence of the economic management will indeed be on full display in the bond market. The effects of the end of the transition and the increasing volatility of Sterling may also hinder our capability to borrow on the market.You’re right that there’s a market appetite for bonds at present, but I don’t share your confidence that this appetite will endure, at current yields.
Your view is the consensus opinion, I admit, and I’m a contrarian on this.
Currently we've only borrowed around 100% of GDP and still have an AA credit rating. Market conditions make it relatively easy for the government to borrow at a low rate, as long as there's time to react, and the Bank of England's financing facility is there to step in too if necessary.
So on the basis that the only real economic price of "lockdown" is borrowing, and that the current cost of borrowing is very low, the answer is yes. We could borrow potentially another 30- 50% of GDP in new bond issues over the coming year without seeing too much increase in refinancing cost, if done under the right conditions. Japan has exceeded 200% and through very careful market borrowing has kept yeild low. I'm not suggesting we'd need to go that far, but fundamentally the answer to the question 'can we afford pay for it?' is, almost always "yes". The question is not whether the Treasury can get its hands on the money. It is whether the Prime Minister is willing to spend it on us.
In the first 'lockdown' the government borrowed and spent a lot of money, it's true. But it also wasn't nearly enough.
Finally there's the question of future tax revenues. We've been living a lie about how much tax we must pay for years - the government can and should commit now to increase some taxes significantly; but not yet. They could announce a plan and a consultation, and look to get new measures in to significantly increase tax revenues from the 2022-23 tax year. This would give confidence to the market, and the credit rating agencies. I doubt that the Conservatives have the spine to be honest with the public though about the paramount importance of us raising more through tax.
I think calling an ISA "tax avoidance" is pushing it, as it's an official Government scheme to encourage savings and investment, not a sneaky workaround.
The lockdown didn't cause economic harm, to think it did is so off beam its why our death numbers and infection rates will continue to be far far too many for a long time to come.
This simply isn't true.Why are so many forgetting why we went into lockdown?
The lockdown didn't cause economic harm, to think it did is so off beam its why our death numbers and infection rates will continue to be far far too many for a long time to come.
Fear.So what caused 20+% of our GDP to just vanish virtually overnight?
So what caused 20+% of our GDP to just vanish virtually overnight?
Maybe the Government shouldn't have tried to whip the population into hysteria deliberately?As it was, many were fearful because the government told them to be. Some people were already very cautious and staying at home as much as they were able. Eventually everyone would have reached their own threshold for that if nothing had been done.
But the effects of doing so were horrendously overstated.The fear of the collapse of the healthcare system was a legitimate one.
However you square it, 'lockdown' isn't what damaged the economy. It was the only way out. We made a mess of it - what's next is the economic price of doing so.
The Hong Kong flu killed ~80,000 in the UK and didn't even manage to kill a recession.I've explained a thousand times and one that there's strong consensus: the only way there can be economic recovery is once the virus is controlled, and more importantly once consumers believe it is. This point isn't controversial anywhere except this forum.
The virus threatened state violence against anyone who dared carry on their life?Coronovirus, not lockdown.
That might be true in a way but its an oversimplification. HMRC are well known for seeking to challenge many forms of tax avoidance with extensive litigation. They win some, they lose some. They force some people to capitulate. They seek, sometimes successfully, to get tax avoidance practices reclassified as a crime. They advise government on all manner of tax outcomes. None of these applies to an ISA and yet they're still tax avoidance.Tax avoidance = tax planning = legal
Tax evasion = illegal
That's all there is to it.
Coronovirus, not lockdown.
Until you can control the virus lockdown has to remain an option.
And what do you think the state of those businesses would have been in if the restrictions had never been put in place?And there I was thinking that it was the collapses in Retail (single biggest contribution to fall), Accomodation & Food Services (second biggest contribution to fall) that led to it, y'know - the things (mostly) mandated to shut by law. Silly me
GDP monthly estimate, UK - Office for National Statistics
Gross domestic product (GDP) measures the value of goods and services produced in the UK. It estimates the size of and growth in the economy.www.ons.gov.uk
And what do you think the state of those businesses would have been in if the restrictions had never been put in place?
Not at all.Higher, because even reduced trade is better than zero trade? Is this a trick question?
This is actually a fair point that I’ve admittedly overlooked recently, perhaps the lockdown has, for some businesses through grants and furlough, had a positive economic impact.Not at all.
In both cases trade would be so low that the businesses would have closed down. So it would be the same - zero. Only if the government hadn't ordered it there would have been less protection.
Agreed 100%There won't be another national lockdown, no matter what. The public won't stand for it, and no government will tank the economy for a second time ...
Why are more people from BAME backgrounds dying from coronavirus?
Health Secretary Matt Hancock has said that people from ethnic minority backgrounds are "disproportionately" dying with coronavirus.
A number of reviews, including by the Office for National Statistics and Public Health England, have now concluded that this is the case.
Suggested reasons have included existing health inequalities, housing conditions, public-facing occupations and structural racism.
(article continues)
Why are more people from BAME backgrounds dying from coronavirus?
People from ethnic minorities have been impacted more by coronavirus, but why?www.bbc.com
There's no doubt that some businesses who weren't performing well before the virus arrived will have successfully used the government's financial assistance to "nationalise" the losses they would have made anyway.This is actually a fair point that I’ve admittedly overlooked recently, perhaps the lockdown has, for some businesses through grants and furlough, had a positive economic impact.
Not at all.
In both cases trade would be so low that the businesses would have closed down. So it would be the same - zero. Only if the government hadn't ordered it there would have been less protection.
And what do you think the state of those businesses would have been in if the restrictions had never been put in place?
I strongly disagree.The lockdown didn't cause economic harm....