UKH

https://www.ted.com/talks/nicola_sturgeon_why_governments_should_prioritize...

Really like this speech - feels to me like it should be just common sense given the challenges we face - but it has me again wondering why Westminster is being so easily driven in the opposite direction.

I'm Scottish and an SNP member, but I'm currently contracting in Newcastle, and I see around me the same social issues that I grew up with in central Scotland. Yet the people I talk to seem to be putting their faith in Boris Johnson of all people to solve their issues, through the medium of the economic disaster that would follow a no deal brexit.

Nicola Sturgeon wouldn't stand a chance of election in England. How do we re-engage with the working classes in England and direct energy back to a socially progressive fight and away from isolationism?

Perhaps if the good people of Newcastle enjoyed the same funding per capita that Scotland enjoys through the Barnet formula, they would not have lost faith with the previous 30 years of politicians and be clutching at straws for hope? 

who's fault is that?

There's going to be no single answer for that. In lieu of hashing out the old answers (education, media reform, political reform) - I'll focus on some important but lesser discussed ways to help.

From what I understand, the isolationism is really about job security and prosperity. Happy, satisfied comfortable people don't care about foreigners coming - but people care if they feel they're already fighting for their lives in the scraps. This is a capitalism problem - we're progressively moving the bell curve of 'skill levels' to higher and higher levels, and people are falling out the back. They will never be software engineers or robotics engineers - they can't upskill beyond a certain point. We need to provide jobs for them - meaningful jobs.
What are these meaningful jobs? Well luckily these are the same jobs that fix another of capitalism's problems - that it's not sustainable. Sustainable jobs are small-scale jobs that people have already been doing for hundreds of years, and can keep doing for hundreds of years. Running the local town, growing high quality local food.
So to this end - supporting local, sustainable businesses will help keep jobs around for people who need them most.

More directly, I think we need to actually communicate more face to face with these other people we disagree with. I don't know how to do this. As is often claimed - 90% of the message is non-verbal cues, and so we lose a lot when we argue on internet forums (and places like facebook will purposefully rank higher the contentious posts that attracted a lot of visceral anger, and hide the ones where people did agree). Similarly, you'd very rarely be so rude in real life as you may on a forum. The real-life conversation is a place to find areas of agreement, and smart compromises (not dive into unsolvable differences) - and the sooner this starts happening. Focus on working together with the things you do agree on, and then you can 'break up' later on once the first issue is solved (e.g. environmentalists would work together with fishermen to protect rivers from poor hydro schemes. Then once the river is saved - they can go back to fighting about whether fishing should be allowed in the first place).
So action item - find ways to engage with people you disagree with, and try and leave both them and yourself richer for it. As a follow-on point - if you do this, don't be a knobhead - you're an ambassador for what claims to be the enlightened and compassionate side - take a deep breath and keep calm.

Lastly I suppose try and be creative, Whatever we've been doing has not worked - we need to try some new stuff to get through.

Not the folk in Newcastle. 

nor the folks in scotland.

perhaps if every region was funded per capita to the level of NI.

Sounds good. Just pop a few percent on the base of tax to cover it. 

it's fine. before you can say "northern powerhouse", little Alexander Bowis Johnston has found a magic money tree. what could possibly go wrong.

Perhaps, but I don't think that's the main issue.

Some of the must impoverished areas in Scotland vote most strongly for the SNP.

I think the grip of the right wing media is much less north of the border, and national identity kept us more separated from the Westminster rightwards drift.

I think devolution gave Scotland the possibility to think differently about how we want to run the country. The people have been offered a vision of a change of direction, and they like it. I don't think that has been seriously offered to the North of England, because there is no devolved administration to offer it, and Westminster is so in thrall to hyper capitalism fuelled by South East votes.

If Carolyn Lucas or Jeremy Corbyn have that speech we would be told they were unelectable, and too many of us would believe it.

Not so many years ago there was a vote on if the residents of the NE, county Durham etc wanted to pursue a regional parliament, some form of devolution etc.  they said no.

Much of the different way of Scotland ie. The free elements are only possible because of the extra funds the Barnet formula gives them. Take away your free bridge tolls, universities etc.. what do you have? North England. 

Good plan, and one I'd be very happy to make my personal contribution to through an increased rate of income tax on my earnings.

I'd prefer it though if assets, inherited wealth (unearned) and asset inflation (unearned) were taxed as aggressively as I am already. I'd also be happier if incorporated bodies were taxed as aggressively as I am already. I' also prefer it if, in the absence of any restraint on executive pay (let's face it often unearned), the rich were more aggressively taxed.

Of course, because everyone is in favour of funding services they use better, as long as they don't pay for it themselves!?

2% on the base catches everyone. 2% of £14k after £12k zero rate threshold equals £40 extra tax per annum. 

2% base rate on the million pound earning CEO is £20k extra tax per annum. 

This is why the richest 5% already pay a huge proportion of income tax receipts. Of course a few percent extra on the highest bracket wouldn't harm either, that would be £40k extra a year and unlikely to impact their lifestyle at all.

I agree with pretty much all of that. 

Prior to coming to Newcastle I'd barely met a brexit voter in person. It's interesting now how many friends I have who are politically largely on my wavelength until it comes to Europe and brexit. It feels like a total cognitive dissonance to me, but I guess my view seems like total cognitive dissonance to them. 

I know it's all a bit chicken and egg, but I guess the question is how do we get people to start voting for the more progressive future, with the sustainable jobs. Right now it seems the answer for so many people in England is looking backwards instead of forwards.

Could some sort of meaningful regional devolution in England give the same shot in the arm to political engagement as it has in Scotland?

I meant to say in addition I would prefer it.

Otherwise I agree, the rich can afford it.

Free (or a few hundred pounds a year) university education is the norm across the whole of Europe. England is far from the poorest country in Europe, so I don't see how funding can be the reason England votes for tuition fees?

England doesn't vote for tuition fees, it votes for not paying more tax.

People are generally economically liberal and fiscally conservative. Ask them if they think that our next generation should be given the best opportunities they can have, then most people will say yes. Ask them if they should increase taxes to improve education and training for the young and most people will say no.

That's independent of where you are when you ask those questions.

The North East is First World compared to Cumbria

I don't see that we'll get anywhere with a 'top-down' approach any time soon (the political process, e.g. FPTP is simply too entrenched, and is deeply beholden to the media and existing elites to change any time soon). I think we need to focus limited energies more on grassroots changes, because I believe the entire structure of society is structurally unsound (at every level, there are huge levels of unsustainable practices).
The way I like to see our unsustainable practices is that we're living off of credit card debt. If you find yourself living on credit card debt, you don't ask "how do I keep my lavish lifestyle while getting out of debt" (top-down view) - you start from the bottom with "what can I actually afford based on my income" (bottom-up view).

I think we have to subvert the 'backwards looking' views and find a compromise based on them. To that degree, I think focusing on local economies is something everyone can agree on. As above, this change will not come from above (I mean it might, but are you willing to stake it all on that?) - it must come from the communities themselves.

Is the South East hyper capitalist then? Are South East votes worth more than other parts of the country? Are voters in Thanet, or Clacton worried about the same things as Chelsea or Hackney? Or are you just making shit up?

It isn't simply a what's good for Europe is good for the UK. There is that small question of funding it.

Plus, if the treasury said ni, Welsh and English students could have free English university places but Scottish students would pay I'd imagine you would do your nut in? But the current reality is English and other foreign fee paying students using a Scottish uni are in effect accruing debt to fund the free places.

The bigger UK problem is still the general lack of and respect given to vocational training and apprenticeships, it's improving but has some distance to go. 

Even the much touted X amount of green energy is now generated in Scotland aren't the snp great... forgets the fact all those wind turbines were built with grants funded through money added to the electricty bills of everyone in the UK. But don't let that stop the snp taking the credit. 

Going back to your original post, isn't seeking devolution isolationism as well? 

Good to see you're happy for someone else to pay before you do.

I'm certainly not suggesting you're unique in this respect. But you might want to consider aspects of the tax code that you may not have thought through. Taking your particular bugbears one by one:

Inherited wealth is money (or assets) that has already been taxed, yet it is taxed again at 40% on each conveyance of wealth

Capital gains (what you call asset inflation) oughtn't to be taxed like income because it doesn't accrue in the same way. Outside home ownership, capital gains come with risk, unlike income, yet risk-taking is essential to grow economies, so it is logical that the tax rate shouldn't become a deterrent to enterprise. Meanwhile, the main source of capital gains is the home you live in. Should we tax that when you make a gain on the sale, thereby forcing you to move down the ladder with what funds remain? Or should that only apply to rich people?

Corporate taxes are important but there is a balance to be struck between tax rate and investment. If you suck the corporations dry, there will be no growth. Recent tax cuts for corporations have seen the tax takings increase, although I agree they could go too far. Current UK levels seem to be in the sweet spot.

Complaining about executive pay is just the politics of jealousy. There are only 100 CEOs in the FTSE 100. Below that level, typically executives get paid what they are worth to the business, rather than what the market demands. Just because 100 people out of 70 million get generously rewarded, some, although not necessarily all, of it very well earned, that is no reason to single out the rich for punitive tax.

Or, to look at it another way, the top 1% of earners already pay nearly a third of all the income tax that supports the NHS and welfare. You seem to be arguing that they should pay less by constraining wealth.

Sound like you are making huge judgements based on tiny samples of people.

Didnt a million Scots vote for Brexit? (almost as many as voted for independence?)

You must live or only know a very narrow minded group of people if you have not met any Brexit voters prior to moving . It’s not really something to be proud off. You should have got out more!

No, he's saying that in addition to paying more himself, there is a fairer distribution. 

The balance is not struck correctly when international businesses can make huge profits using UK infrastructure and avoid taxes. 

Whenever the phrase "the politics of envy" is used, someone is talking utter bollocks. The objection is to the obscenely inefficient distribution of resources - it is a moral objection to the system that results in grotesque inequality. There's no reason to think that those who argue for "punitive" taxes on the super rich have any desire for the pointless, gaudy tat that the super rich spend their wealth on. I for one would be a million times happier in a van in Northumberland than in a luxury hotel in Monaco. It's nothing to do with envy, it's a visceral moral objection to grotesque, opulent wealth. 

I'm quite happy to accept practical arguments about how taxing super rich individuals is a crap policy, but when you use the phrase "the politics of envy" you demonstrate that you do not understand the arguments and motivations for such policies. 

We do not want the pointless gaudy tat for ourselves. We want a reduction in poverty. 

Suggest you also direct your ire to the likes of the Dutch or Irish governments who set up schemes designed to allow those deals in their countries which grease the wheels of such avoidance schemes.

Read pasbury’s post again. I interpreted as a clear preference that the rich get taxed more before he does a penny more.

For what it’s worth, I’d be happy, and regularly do vote, to be taxed more. But not disproportionately so.

That wasn’t the point pasbury made. Yours is a straw man, if, in itself, it’s a valid observation. And governments, especially the French and British, are striving to address the problem of Amazon et al. Did you not read that Trump is planning to lay tariffs on France and deny us a trade deal because of our proposals to tax US tech? Meanwhile, you haven’t considered giant UK corporations making billions abroad using foreign workers and infrastructure yet paying their corporation tax in the UK. A very high proportion of the profits made by FTSE 100 companies are made abroad and taxed here!

Whenever the phrase “moral objection” is used, someone is assuming the high ground without necessarily providing the justification.

Another case of shouting and claiming the high ground, this time intellectual. Do you actually believe I don’t see the arguments on both sides? But there wouldn’t be much point in me spending time here if not to act as one of the few voices prepared to stand up the hegemony on economic matters.

What makes you think I don’t have the same desires as you? As I stated above I’m here to make arguments that otherwise would go unmade by any more than a tiny minority of posters, yet which drive maybe half the population of the nation. Your shouting them down when not misconstruing my points, unintentionally or otherwise, and insulting my intelligence does you little credit, no matter how passionate your views.

I think you're confusing what politicians say their policies are doing with what their policies are actually achieving. After 12 years in power the SNP have country with treble the drug related death rate of England and Wales and a suicide rate 51% higher than England's.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/16/scotland-records-huge-rise-...

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriage...

In the context of your leaping to the defence of the way corporations are taxed, it's a valid point, not a straw man. 

That's great, and I can't wait to stop feeling ripped off when I no longer hear how little tax amazon et al have paid. 

I'm quite happy to stand by my moral objection to a system that concentrates obscene amounts of wealth among a few while many live below the breadline. I don't understand why you think that this objection requires further justification; and you can attempt to dismiss the objection by calling it "assuming the high ground" if you like, but the objection remains unanswered. 

No. My claim is that by using the bullshit phrase "the politics of envy", you fail to understand the motivation of the other side. Or more likely, you deliberately misrepresent it as an excuse to not engage with the argument: that a system that generates grotesque inequality needs reform. 

The phrase "politics of envy"! It's bollocks. 

And it's all really interesting and as you say, a little heard angle; except "the politics of envy", which is bollocks. 

Too right. 

Honest business people should be at the forefront of arguments against loophole based tax avoidance as it gives rise to distorted competitive edges, higher tax rates for them and builds distrust in the population for their business efforts. Yet too often they seem to me to act as apologists.

The big disruptive US tech firms tax arrangements are the opposite of a strawman, they are one of the main tax problems in the UK, being highly anticompetitive and a danger to fairly regulated growth. If UK FTSE 100 companies are doing the similar abroad they should also be called out.

Back to individuals, that the UK has way more than its 'fair share' of foriegn super-rich individuals, shows our tax system is faulty and too easy to manipulate by the very wealthy. None of this is that new either, so I'm not convinced any recent governemnent was doing anything like it could.  For instance how much has really changed since David Cameron's time when this piece was produced:

https://www.globalwitness.org/en-gb/blog/uk-must-get-tough-tax-havens-its-a...

Some typical avoidance links:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/03/inheritance-tax-loopholes-...

https://www.accounting-degree.org/accounting-tricks/

It was just an observation, I'm not proud of it or otherwise, and I'm not sure why you feel the need to turn it into a personal slight?

I said I'd "barely" met a brexit supporter in person - as opposed to now meeting them on a daily basis. Perhaps I should have said "barely met a vocal brexit supporter" because I'm sure I knew plenty of people who decided to tick that box, but not many who felt strongly enough about it to voice their dislike of Europe.

The reason for mentioning it is because I'm considering the differences between the circles I associated with elsewhere and here.

Up until 2014 I lived in London, working in the city and splitting my social time between climbing and boozing in old fashioned working man's pubs. I never came across much anti-european sentiment in my time there. The government seemed to shoulder the blame.

In the last few years I've spent a while in Glasgow, in Stirling, a couple of months in the Highlands and a lot of time on the road doing climbing vanlife.

One thing that's striking for me is the difference between attitudes working in a retail bank in Newcastle and working in a retail bank in Glasgow. Similar sort of administration roles in both places, similar sorts of social backgrounds amongst colleagues, diametrically opposed attitudes to Europe.

I don't drink any more, so I don't hang around in working class pubs, but talking to working class people at the gym, laundrettes etc. there is an anger towards Europe that I have seen in Scotland or London.

And in the climbing world - which the voting on here will confirm is skewed heavily towards pro-europe - I've never met a pro brexit climber in London, Scotland or on the road, but I know a few here in Newcastle.

Seems to me like proximity to the seat of power (in London) and being far enough removed from the seat of power to have another layer to look to for answers, might be important in generating the feeling that positive changes can be made.

Oh I do love a guardian article about tax dodging.

What they don't mention is that many of these people when establishing their so called avoidance schemes, are moving the assets into trusts or giving them to their kids prior to death etc. But are also pre paying inheritance tax over the years in advance. Depending on the scale of your pot and how long you live, this can be a false economy as it's an annual fee not a finite amount. However what they avoid is a massive bill when they die that forces them sell some portion of the estate to cover the tax. 

Absolutely anyone is free to do this. The problem in the UK and elsewhere is a general lack of financial awareness of tax, tax free savings, isa, trust funds, pensions etc. Average Joe could do much better simply by being more clued up. People spend days planning holidays or car purchases, but barely give a second thought to their retirement etc. 

The same concerns are raised in most major newspapers. Including the FT (paywalled)

https://www.ft.com/content/8aebb1fa-a3da-11e9-974c-ad1c6ab5efd1

Why is England the only country that can't fund it? What is so different about England?

Indeed it would, any system that involves the next generation paying for their education does my nut in. Education should be free, it benefits us all in the long run.

Students from almost all of the EU get free places in Scotland, English students pay because England decided it doesn't want to be part of the free education club.

Personally, I'd like England to come back to the club. 

But the fact of the matter is, the English electorate voted for a government that promised to bring in tuition fees, and have since had the opportunity to vote for a PM who would remove them, but didn't. While Scotland consistently votes for an adminstration that promises to keep university free.

Barnet is a distraction.

Yes, expenditure per capita varies in the countries of the UK. But expenditure per capita varies wildly all over europe, and everyone sets aside money for tertiary education, England is the only country where the people vote to force their children into massive debt to get a degree. Why is that?

I agree this is a big issue that should be prioritised.

It's not about credit, if we don't transition very quickly to clean energy we're screwed. Of course we will have to pay, is saving the planet bit with a few quid on your electricity bill?

It could be, but it certainly doesn't have to be. There are always trade offs to be had between various methods of how to co-operate best.

If people are feeling under-represented by the current system, giving greater control at a local level could help people feel much more integrated at a national and international level.

Small sample set, but two of the three nation's in the UK with devolved parliaments voted to remain in the EU - which shows its certainly possible to remain outward looking whilst taking more control over local decision making.

Would agree, but the scale of places needs reducing, A levels fixing and better vocational training. 

Labour introduced them, Tories increased them, no one believes Corbyn could generate the funds to fulfill his promises. 

Happy to scrap it and have equal funding as England? 

Perhaps if England was not giving more money to Scotland etc it should have more left for English education? 

I didn't say it wasn't worth it. I said the snp are taking credit for what everyone in the UK has paid for. 

Or could just add in another layer of over paid beurocracy? How many layers does any country need?

How would a devolved Scotland be outward looking? It wouldn't be a member of the UK or the eu. It would be a very small standard alone nation. 

I did put an exclamation mark at the end of my post ad a sign of humour. 

I meet loads of Brexit climbers. 

As i said they don't mention pre payment of inheritance tax. It's one-sided. Plus if you've earned, been taxed, saved it or invested what you had left, why can't you pass it on to your kids and help them. 

Scotland has long has a drug problem. Edinburgh was the heroin capital of Europe when I was growing up.

From the article:

"According to the latest annual figures, published on Tuesday morning, most of the increase in fatalities was in the over-35 age-group, the so-called “Trainspotting generation” of ageing, long-term users, although there was also a rise in deaths among younger people."

Long term users are difficult to tackle, you need to treat the problem as a public health issue, and it takes a long term strategy.

Also from the article:

"The figures come as the Scottish government renews calls for more powers to be devolved to Holyrood which it believes will allow it to take measures required to halt the fatalities. Drugs legislation, including the Misuse of DrugsAct, is currently reserved to Westminster, which has resisted initial attempts to relax the law north of the border."

Treating knife crime as a public health issue in Scotland has had dramatic results, treating drug abuse as a public health issue in Portugal and other countries has had dramatic results. The Scottish government has fought for the right to do the same, but Westminster refuses to give authority to do so.

There will always be things that any administration could do better. But blaming the SNP for failing to tackle our long term problem with one hand tied behind it's back is missing the point IMO.

The current estimated costs of the University tuition fee system are not so far from those of zero fees given the huge expected write-offs, extra costs of running the loan system and inactivity of the money locked for decades into the massive debt. Plus the sneaky UK off-balance sheet benefit has now gone since the ONS intervened last year.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13773

There are also big differences between subject and institution adding pressure for changes there.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13944

What actual snp measures that reduce the problem are London blocking? Or are they just saying this to stoke devolution sentiment? 

Again, why is it England is the only country in Europe that believes it's leaders would not be able to fund free tertiary education?

Agree it's out of date.

Happy to scrap it for full fiscal autonomy ( with devolved nations contributing equally per capita to reserved matters such as defence, etc )

Happy to scrap it for a needs based system, where the actual cost of devolved administration of regions with low population density etc. is taken into consideration.

Not happy to accept that Scotland should shoulder the burden of it's devolved administration costs whilst paying the UK treasury to collect it's taxes for it, etc. If you're going to have to pay for everything yourself, you might as well be independent 😉

I'm not really interested in credit, I'm interested in why this speech would be popular for a leader in Scotland, but not in Westminster?

The Scottish independence movement is very much aiming towards EU membership right now.

The Scottish parliament voted to set up a supervised drug consumption program (such as you'll see in Portugal, Holland, etc.) but the home office refuses to issue the required legal exemptions to do so.

I'd guess it's because they have a massive annual deficit and trillion plus in debt. And they inherited Blair's degrees for everyone goal, it just wasn't financially viable or wise. All solvable of course. 

I'm aiming for Mars in 2021 but that's does not mean it's remotely achievable. 

Absolutely nothing the eu has ever said has even hinted that Scotland could simply switch over and that's ignoring the continually dodged currency question. 

The discrepancy in drug deaths hasn't got better under 12 years of devolved SNP government, It's got worse.

The Misuse of drugs act is the same North and South of the border. I fail to see how it can be blamed for Scotland having 3 times the rate of drug fatalities of England and Wales. It's the same old SNP cop out; every policy failure is the fault of Westminster and a call for more devolution.

I'm in favour of decriminalisation, but it still doesn't explain why this issue has got considerably worse in Scotland but not England.

Sturgeon is on stage pontificating about national wellbeing and telling the audience how Scotland will lead the way. At the same time her country's suicide rates are up, drug deaths up massively, education outcomes in decline and life expectancy the lowest in Western Europe.

https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/2019/06/scotland-effect-why-life-exp...

You come out with the standard excuse that the SNP 'has one hand tied behind it's back'. That may be the case but outcomes like this combined with 20% higher per capita public spend than England, you'd have to wonder how much damage the SNP could do if they had both hands available.

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04033

Guess it gives them someone to blame now, rather than search out other solutions  related education, employment, social problems etc. 

You misunderstood my point. My only reference to loophole based tax avoidance was to explain how certain governments, ours included, were taking steps to address it. I had not raised the issue nor sought to justify or excuse it 

What I had originally highlighted was simply that, just as foreign companies own assets and operate in the UK, yet pay their taxes in their home jurisdictions, so the majority of our largest companies make their money abroad yet pay their tax here. Nothing to do with avoidance because none is taking place. That observation in response to the earlier post, which I had interpreted, rightly or wrongly, to bemoan foreign exploitation of UK markets without a matching local tax payment. I just pointed out the swings and roundabouts of legitimate, tax-compliant globalisation.

That’s because most businesses see the pros/ cons both ways. Honest business people recognise avoidance as just a strategy  on the part of a government to help business. For example R and D credits are an avoidance strategy but help business with R and D  ( nothing wrong with that).

Evasion is a different issue. 

Greece can afford free tertiary education, but England can't because it's in too much debt? 

I'd guess not.

Of course not, Scotland would have to apply for membership. Nothing the EU has ever said has even hinted that the application process would be unnecessarily complicated.

The only real stumbling block was the veto from countries who may feel it set a precedent for their own independence campaigns. 

Now the the UK is leaving, that is no longer an issue. A non-member state splitting up and one part applying to become a member is very different from catalonia (for example) leaving a member state.

Scotland is already in regulatory alignment with the EU. We would probably have to sign up to joining the Euro at some point, but in practice there is no formal convergence path or timetable, and several countries have been in the EU for a very long time with no pressure to complete that process.

Solutions like promoting international collaboration to find ways of supporting transition to more socially cohesive government policies?

And as quoted in the article, most of those deaths are long term users 35+, who were probably problem users before the SNP got into government, never mind before any long term educational and welfare policies were up and running. 

The proof of the pudding with regard to those policies will be in the next couple of decades. To tackle the issue of long term problematic users we need harm reduction policies. Policies such as supervised drug centers, which have been shown to massively reduce deaths and help people get to the services they require to get off drugs when they are ready to engage with them. 

Scotland has a long term drug problem. That the misuse of drugs act is not fit for purpose on either side of the border does not detract from the fact that we have a serious issue here that needs urgent changes.

If you are in favour of decriminalisation and harm reduction policies, why do you believe that if the SNP was able to pursue those policies they would make things worse?

Ahh, right. So because they got into smack before the SNP came to power, the intervening 12 years, right up until their addiction killed them have got nowt to do with the Scottish government? The article also notes that there's been an increase in deaths amongst young addicts.

The next couple of decades? They've had 12 years in power and things have got worse but you reckon they deserve another generation in power? 

I'd agree with you there, but you're still not addressing the fact that England and Scotland are both struggling with the same legislation, it's just that Scotland is experiencing treble the drug related death rate compared to England.

I didn't say that. A better illustration of my point might be if you reversed the situation re Scotland and England. Imagine if 12 years into a devolved English Tory government, educational attainment had fallen below Scotland's, life expectancy was the lowest in Western Europe, English people were killing themselves at 51% higher rate than Scotland's and English drug related deaths were 3x Scotland's. At the same time England's public expenditure is 20% higher than Scotland's.

Then imagine Theresa May gives a Ted talk the theme of which, wrapped in no small amount of jingoism, is how England is prepared to lead the world in re-focusing on 'National Wellbeing'. She'd be laughed off the stage.

...and a Tory supporter who came on here and proposed that the Conservatives simply needed another 20 years for their policies to see fruition? they'd rightly be laughed off the forum.

Or perhaps cover the basics on home turf. Education, social care, employment, regeneration, etc.. I've lived in the gorbals, shawlands and newhaven.. There is plenty to be done locally before blaming London and latching onto some trial from Portugal that may or may not change anything.  

The problem is for real change to take place, socially, in education, investment in training it probably does take a generation to really show through. 

Agreed, but 12 years in you wouldn't expect successful policies to be making stuff much worse.

Of course, things shouldn't be declining, perhaps an improvement in sight. 

Utilising loopholes isn't legitimate avoidance even if its not illegal and it's certainly not encouraged by government. Defending such avoidance by dodging the subject of loopholes just proves my point about apologism. I've nothing against designed tax breaks and most don't regard them as avoidance. I wish the term avoidance could be reserved for loophole based avoidance to cut the wind out of those avoiding discussion about the real damage to the UK economy of loophole based avoidance.

I think we need more and better R&D tax breaks and loans in the UK, however some applied to the Aim market are now looking shaky:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/news/inheritance-tax-break-aim-shares...

Most loopholes end as being classed as evasion after HMRC have caught up with them. Anything sounding dodgy usually is and people / companies usually get caught out.

This rule is an anachronism (a loophole if you like) since quoted companies almost by definition are a step beyond family firms. Nevertheless some families do retain substantial involvement over generations after listing. To accommodate situations where an investor holds a substantial stake akin to family ownership, usually because founders keep a stake of at least 10% on listing, it would be an easy matter to set a minimum holding percentage so that the benefit could be retained in appropriate cases. 5% would be a high bar that would exclude the more than 99% of shareholders who never contributed their labour to the entity.

R and D tax breaks need revamping entirely imho. When you get a large number of R and D advisers springing up all over the place who take a % cut on on the tax break, it indicates something is wrong with the system. Even reasonable size accountatnts have a habitat of farming out work to them, all earning a decent cut.One R and D adviser I was speaking to was looking at taking 30%-50% of the break as their earnings and they were quickly shown the door.

In reality HMRC are helpful, but its still a very complicated process especially for small firms.

GDP is very useful for many people. It tells you how much is being produced by the economy.

I completely agree that chasing GDP growth doesn’t necessarily lead to better life outcomes.

However this idea that we should instead chase some “wellbeing” measure instead is equally fundamentally flawed. What is considered “wellbeing” might suit some people but might not suit others. It’s also not clear to me that “wellbeing” whatever that is, should in fact be a primary policy objective.

It’s also not clear to me that “wellbeing” whatever that is, should in fact be a primary policy objective.

I think the Danes would disagree. This article stops short of describing wellbeing as a policy directive, but it is the apparent outcome of economic and welfare policy and philosophy. I guess you need something to compensate for the boring landscape.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-01-20/why-danes-ha...

I am a big fan of the Danish system, however in a big centralised state like the UK, with different parts having very different views on what wellbeing should in fact be, I have no doubt that such a policy would be used by the majority to impose its will on the minority.

Disagree on every single point. Inherited wealth certainly SHOULD be taxed at 40%. In reality, above a certain size most estates will be managed in away to avoid exactly that. That this is at least in part legal is irrelevant, if so it is just the thing that needs to be changed.

Also, capital gains are no more or less risky than home ownership. What you say about taking risks is ONLY true for investing in shares upon their initial emission (or investing in some company in a different way), for which a tax benefit to encourage entrepeneurship may make sense. Speculating on shares once they are on the market does not benefit the company, any risk is already balanced by potentially higher gains. Speculative income should thus not be granted a special status.

Corporate taxes, same as point one. Loopholes allowing the bigger players to cut their tax need to be closed rather urgently.

Exec pay: You call it jealousy, everyone else calls it fairness. The perverse pay spread should be capped, if needs be by punitive taxes, especially when a company is making losses (or even more extreme, depends on state bailouts). 

CB

I have a simple heuristic:

- Income generated through rent seeking should be taxed more than income from employment.

- Income from employement should be taxed more than income generated through genuine entrepreneurship.

Not sure how that would work in practice. How would you classify the likes of Green, Dyson, Alan Sugar,Bamford family or the devil in disguise Michael Ashley. How on earth do you define a genuine entrepreneur. Ashley certainly figures as one as a rags to riches person with a very very good eye for a "deal".

I can see huge holes in that sort of heuristic.

I’m not saying we should classify people, instead you classify their income streams, which we already do.

Just to clear up what I meant and didn’t write very well (and tried to correct in a subsequent post).

I am happy to pay more tax if it results in better, less mean public services, even if I never have to use them myself.

Additionally, I would like tax liabilities to be pursued properly according to tax law as it currently stands - to catch more tax avoiders and dodgers. Additionally  I would like more tax burden to be placed on those who have experienced huge rises in the value of their assets or their salaries over the last ten years.

Even if these policies aren’t pursued I’d still pay more tax for better services, even I, a middle income salaryman can afford it, and am willing to pay my part of the social contract. Why shouldn’t others both corporate and private feel the heat of social obligation?

tl,dr if I’m paying X % why shouldn’t rich people too?

It leads to the obvious question . How much do you want  to pay?

And you missed a few categories. Self - employed? Pensioners - or as they are living off income /assets do they come under the higher rate.