labour isn't going to raise income tax to 90% or anything you know, the major tax raise is going to be corporation tax going back to 26% with the overwhelming majority of tax efforts being in tax avoidance
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
hilarious dude, hilarious
thanks
Extending the A50 is extremely doubtful , but let's say they did.
Then the UK have another vote - Remain or leave win.
Remain - EU27 and UK all have to agree to cancelling A50.
Leave - The same offer is there. No change.
Then what. May as well decide to Remain now.
Then where would be the incentive for anyone to start a business and employ people?
this is a grey area and it's still going through the European courts, the UK might be able to unilaterally revoke A50
You're telling me 'earning just under 6 figures' isn't motivation enough?
But ok if they can do that so they stay, what happens if Leave win again? Then it's no deal.
Bizarely the government doesn't appear to want that right.
yeah but the point is it's all the governments hands, until the UK has left it can use the EU mechanisms as they're intended
Not if the taxation system only allows me to take home as much as an employee. We will all be employees but there will be no businesses.
Karl Marx said:
Since you'll only be taxed at the highest rate on the but above 80000 I find it doubtful that you'd be earning the same as your employees
Yes but we're now talking about simply a choice between remaining per the status quo and falling off the cliff because the safety net has been rejected.
With Brexit round the corner the UK more likely needs to lower corporation tax, rather than hike it, if it wants to retain businesses and share up some of the cost of Brexit that businesses will be burdened with.
Tax avoidance is another matter though and should be hunted down like the devil it is.
Tax avoidance is another matter though and should be hunted down like the devil it is.
You said yes to me paying more. My point is that there comes a point when you destroy aspiration. People that open businesses often risk a lot in the early days. They also stand to lose more if it fails. That is not to diminish the hardship that is generally felt by the employees. But there should be a differential in rewards that recognises those risks. If that differential is eroded then the incentive to take the risk and start a business in the first place diminishes.
But if like, Red Silva up there you are a fan of the workers owning the means of production then fine - but be happy with your commune and don't try and compete with other countries because you will lose.
Of course they (the EU) would agree to extending A50 for a referendum that could potentially return a remain vote - why wouldn't they.
As I said, this (a second referendum) strikes me as a much less likely scenario than crashing out with no deal (which must be odds on at this point).
Possibly but it has to be sorted well before the EU elections in May.
But if leave won again the UK's off the cliff. Like playing russian roulette.
if the aspiration is solely to make more money than other people then i'm completely fine with punitively taxing these people
i have a far less successful business than yours and on the rare occasion that i had projects big enough that i need to hire freelancers, i give them a proportional share of the pay because i'd have to be a real dick to think i earned the money more than they did
EU elections seems to be one of the main reasons as the theory is it will massively encourage more anti eu parties if they are not seen to be tough and holding the UK to A50... there might be some flexibility in there but dont rule out the EU putting the Eu institutions and votes above that of one member who has said they want out - especially as it has to be agreed unanimously.
I believe all UK MEP seats have already been allocated to other countries in the upcoming election... so thats not insurmountable but a bit sticky... the EU elections are I think back end of May and the campaigning period would therefore be I think from around 29th March
Would we hold EU elections and have the seats if we started to remain - what kind of MEP's would we vote in during the middle or aftermath of a second referendum - that will be messy - not insurmountable but certiainly not ideal especially for the EU
What is the campaign period for a 2nd referendum - it was 10 weeks last time and one of the arguments is people didnt know what they were voting for - so Id guess 10 weeks seems logical as a minimum again... so its going to have to be called bloody quick to avoid the EU elections and neither party is calling for it yet so I have my doubts
especially as the EU rejected italys budget again today so I guess they will have some incentive to show how tricky leaving is to prevent quitaly
Avoidance is just bad legistlation letting people get away with stuff
Evasion needs hunting down... for avoidence they need to look at the way they write the laws and close the loopholes - its difficult to blame people for using perfectly legal things to mitigate tax liability - I mean who wouldnt - thats how the govenment encourages things like pensions and ISA's - so why wouldnt people act within the law in a way that benefits them - you have to focus on the laws in that context i think... I run a company and in theory if I didnt make best use of the tax laws to maximise profit and shareholder return I could find myself in court!.
so focus in the laws
This was part of the lexit argument tbf. If we leave the EU it will be easier to have tax laws that make it close to impossible to offshore taxes. It won't work like, but that was one of the arguments.
They don't care, in the Utopian Socialist World.
Tax Evasion is illegal and actively hunted down already.
Tax Avoidance on the other hand is using legal loopholes like you said but has the same net effect as tax evasion. So it needs hunting down. Not in the sense of punishing the individuals/companies but in the sense of finding the loopholes hey use and closing them. And making their life extremely difficult if they persist.
I’m also a big fan of exposing tax avoiders so the public can put pressure on them to be more ethical. I haven’t shopped in Starbucks for years since I found out they were tax avoiding and I’ve been cutting down on my Amazon reliance very heavily too.
This poll is just as confusing as Brexit.
the tories have cut the HMRC budget and serious crime office budget so this is a lot less active than it should be
I just voted in the poll the same way I voted in the referendum which was to close my eyes and pick one at random.
Us staring down the barrel of oblivion, shitting ourselves, calling a second referendum and voting to remain instead, would also send a pretty clear message to any country flirting with the idea of leaving.
I agree that the elections complicate things, but there is a window there where one could conceivably squeeze in a second vote, if one was was inclined to do so. But, as you correctly say, therein lies the problem - the leaders of both main parties seem opposed (or at least not actively in favour) and it's pretty unthinkable that a Tory PM would call for a second vote. That's why this is all much less likely than simply crashing out with 'no deal', which is what I now assume will happen.
okay
literally one of the first things Osbourne when they coalition started, tax evasion and avoidance has since gone from c.20bn to c.36bn
Everyone will be equal but some will be more equal than others.
Whoever edited that thread title is an absolute hero.
true
Tend to agree its hard to see all the eventual outcomes but certainly Id say the probability of leaving on March 29th with no deal would be higher than any of the other permutations... and to be honest if Mays deal gets voted down I think at that point all businesses and government departments etc have to switch to full on prepare to leave with no deal mode - which in its self will tae so much effort - quote possibly with a general election in the background that it will be really hard if not impossible to stop - unless the EU throw a lifeline of offering to extend A50 - but again elections, quitaly etc Im not sure I see them doing that.
It was always going to be hard to find a deal that united people behind it - but it seems we have found a position that almost nobody supports ...
That explains a lot
Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with a hard no on that.
https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-avoidance-evasion-uk/
Any more "alternative facts"?
This is why I dont think there will be a second referendum - I dount they could agree a question without numerous challenges to the electoral commissions about fairness.... and certainly they would struggle to do so in a timeframe suited to the EU elections etc
https://constitution-unit.com/2018/...-what-question-should-might-be-put-to-voters/
https://constitution-unit.com/2018/...-what-question-should-might-be-put-to-voters/
If there’s a second referendum on Brexit, what question should be put to voters?
Posted on September 13, 2018 by Constitution Unit
In the fourth in a series of posts on the mechanics of a possible second referendum on Brexit, Jess Sargeant, Alan Renwick and Meg Russell consider what question should be asked. This would be crucial for any vote to command legitimacy. Various models have been proposed, but some are far more credible than others in the current context.
This is the fourth in a series of posts on the possible mechanics of a second referendum on Brexit. Having previously discussed the timetable, and the circumstances in which such a referendum might be called, this post considers what kind of question should be put to voters.
Which options might voters be asked to choose between?
Three main options could be considered for inclusion in any further referendum on Brexit:
Some might add a fourth option: to reopen negotiations. But any option put to a referendum must satisfy two criteria: it must be feasible, and it must be clear. An option to reopen negotiations would fail on both counts: the EU might well refuse to reopen negotiations; and there would be no certainty as to what the UK might secure from such negotiations. A referendum of this kind could not ‘settle’ the issue of the UK’s relationship with the EU.
- leave the EU on the terms the government has negotiated
- leave the EU without a deal
- remain in the EU
What form might the question take?
With three options in play, decisions would need to be taken about which of them should appear on the ballot paper, in what form, and in what combination. Several proposals have been made in recent debates, as set out in the table below.
Single Yes/No question
The first possibility is to present voters with one option and ask whether they support or oppose it. While in principle this could be done with any of the three options, such a case has in practice been made only in relation to leaving the EU on the terms of any negotiated deal. The government might propose this kind of referendum to seek a popular mandate, particularly if its deal were rejected by parliament.
Such a question format would be familiar to voters, but not tenable in the current situation. A Yes/No referendum poses a choice between the option on the ballot paper and the status quo. But the status quo in this case is unclear: rejection could mean support for staying in the EU, or for leaving without a deal, or indeed for some alternative deal. It would be too difficult for voters to make their decision and for parliament to interpret the result. A referendum of this kind is not advisable.
Single two-option question
A two-option format would be familiar from the 2016 referendum, and also easy to understand. But with three viable options, excluding any could prevent some voters from expressing their preference, which could undermine the referendum’s legitimacy. The depth of this problem varies between the possible combinations of options.
Negotiated deal vs. Remain
This option is favoured by many proponents of a second referendum, who argue that, given the potential disruption it could cause, putting the ‘no deal’ option to the people would be irresponsible.
But this route would dissatisfy many voters. Those who perceive ‘no deal’ as the option best honouring the 2016 referendum result could view a new referendum excluding this option as a deliberate attempt by politicians to overturn the previous result. This could cause an angry public backlash, and risk undermining democratic trust. The extent of backlash would likely depend on the nature of the negotiated deal – being greatest if the deal was considered ‘too soft’, but minimised if the deal were acceptable to pro-Brexit opinion leaders.
Negotiated deal vs. no deal
As in the previous case, a ‘deal versus no deal’ referendum would likely provoke a backlash amongst supporters of the excluded option – in this case, those who would prefer to remain in the EU. Legislation to enable a referendum of this kind is also very unlikely to get through parliament: current proponents of a second referendum would be unlikely to support a referendum where Remain was not an option.
No deal vs. Remain
If the government and the EU fail to agree a deal, leaving with no deal and remaining clearly become the only viable options. In these circumstances, a single two-option question would be logical, leaving voters with a clear choice.
This option could also potentially arise if the deal were rejected by MPs. But if a deal exists, it is likely that the government would argue strongly that it should be on the ballot paper – making such a scenario unlikely.
Single multi-option referendum
Some of the above reasoning points towards the possibility of a three-option referendum, which has been proposed by high-profile supporters of a second referendum including Justine Greening and Tony Blair.
The obvious advantage of this approach is that no prominent option is excluded, allowing voters to support their most preferred of the three options. This could help secure public legitimacy. It could also prove the format that parliament is most likely to support. Nonetheless it brings potential challenges. Such votes are unfamiliar in the UK, so administrators would probably need more time to plan for the poll and for regulating the campaign.
There is also a key question concerning what voting system should be used. This matters because different voting methods could lead to different outcomes – as demonstrated in the table below, which uses illustrative, notional figures not based on polling data.
First Past the Post
First Past the Post, where voters state a single preference and the option receiving the highest vote share wins, is the most familiar system for UK voters; but in a referendum it can easily lead to inconclusive results. In one example in Sweden in 1980, the three options on offer received, respectively, 18.9%, 39.1% and 38.7% of votes.
Such an approach would be unacceptable to many, as it could result in a winner on less than 50% of votes. It would split the ‘Leave’ vote between the deal and no deal options, which could, as in the table, allow the single Remain option to win – even if a clear majority of voters preferred one of the Leave options. Given such possibilities, the use of First Past the Post in a multi-option referendum is strongly ill-advised.
Alternative Vote
Under the Alternative Vote (AV) system, participants rank the options in order of preference. First preferences are counted, and if one option receives over 50% of the vote, it wins. If not, the option with fewest votes is eliminated and the second preferences of that option’s supporters are counted. Such a system allows voters to express their preference and avoids vote splitting.
But AV can be subject to the so-called ‘Condorcet problem’. If an option exists that could defeat any of the other options in a pairwise contest, many would argue that it should win. Under AV, however, this option could be eliminated in the first round, particularly if it is a compromise outcome attracting few first preferences. In the theoretical example above, the deal may be the option that is acceptable to the largest number of voters, but it is eliminated because it is fewest people’s first choice.
It has been proved mathematically that it is impossible to devise a voting system that eliminates the danger of any paradox such as the Condorcet problem in a multi-option contest. AV is not perfect, but no system can be – and AV is certainly preferable in a referendum context to First Past the Post.
Other voting systems
There are a number of other voting systems that would be used for such a vote, including a Condorcet pairwise contest and ‘Borda count’. But neither has previously been used for any prominent political vote in the UK. In a major referendum that demands high clarity and legitimacy, the use of new systems seems both risky and unlikely.
Two-question referendum
A last proposal is to have a two-question referendum. Two different forms of this have been proposed (matching those in the earlier table):
A two-part approach would allow all three options to be kept in play, whilst maintaining the familiar binary format of previous referendums. However, such arrangements would create very difficult tactical voting decisions for some voters, preventing them from expressing their preferences clearly. This in turn could lead to major legitimacy problems. For example, under the Grieve proposal, many voters’ decisions on whether they approved the deal would depend on what they would get if the deal was rejected – but they could not know this at the time of the first ballot.
- Dominic Grieve model: In the first round, voters would be asked whether they approve the negotiated deal or not. If they reject the deal, they would later be asked whether they want the UK to stay in the EU or leave with no deal.
- Vernon Bogdanor model: Voters would first be asked whether they want the UK to remain in the EU or leave. If they vote to leave, a second ballot would give them the choice between the deal and leaving with no deal.
Another concern with any two-ballot system is that the ordering of the questions could affect the outcome. The table below uses the same notional numbers as above and assumes that voters follow their first preferences. The negotiated deal could be rejected by as many as 80% of voters using the Grieve model, but chosen by 65% of voters on Bogdanor’s model.
A two-round referendum format would also take longer and create extra complexities for campaigners. For all of these reasons, it would be undesirable.Note: These calculations are made on the assumption that voters vote strictly in accordance with the same (wholly notional) preferences simulated in the previous table.
Conclusion
Having analysed the various question formats and excluded several, we are left with three viable approaches. If there is no deal reached between the UK and EU, a straightforward choice between no deal and remain would be logical. If a deal is reached, many referendum proponents would favour a deal vs. remain vote; but this could cause protests, the extent of which may depend on the content of the deal itself. If there is concern that excluding a viable option would be too controversial, a single multi-option referendum may be advisable, between the deal, ‘no deal’ and remain. In this case AV seems the best system to use.
In short, there is no single, simple way to make a collective choice in a referendum when there are more than two serious options. If such a vote proceeds, particularly if three options remain on the table, parliament will have some complex and important decisions to take.
This is the fourth in a series of posts on ‘The Mechanics of a Further Referendum on Brexit’. Further blogs on this topic will be added in the coming weeks: to see all posts in the series, visit our project page.
About the authors
Jess Sargeant is a Research Assistant at the Constitution Unit.
Alan Renwick is Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit.
Meg Russell is Director of the Constitution Unit.
alright i'll give you that one
