Super-rich prepare to leave UK ‘within minutes’ if Labour wins election | News | The Guardian


The super-rich are preparing to immediately leave the UK if Jeremy Corbyn becomes prime minister, fearing they will lose billions of pounds if the Labour leader does “go after” the wealthy elite with new taxes, possible capital controls and a clampdown on private schools.

Lawyers and accountants for the UK’s richest families said they had been deluged with calls from millionaire and billionaire clients asking for help and advice on moving countries, shifting their fortunes offshore and making early gifts to their children to avoid the Labour leader’s threat to tax all inheritances above £125,000.

The advisers said a Corbyn-led government was viewed as a far greater threat to the wealth and quality of life of the richest 1% than a hard Brexit.

 

Source: Super-rich prepare to leave UK ‘within minutes’ if Labour wins election | News | The Guardian

Chris Philp: Cut Stamp Duty – and unleash a new Home Ownership Revolution | Conservative Home


Chris Philp is has served as PPS in the Treasury and MHCLG, and on the Treasury Select Committee. He is MP for Croydon South.

One of the signal achievements of the Thatcher Government was the home ownership revolution. Millions of people were able to buy their own home for the first time – through right-to-buy and a more dynamic housing market generally. Sadly, much of that good work has been undone in the years since.

Home ownership rates have fallen from a high of 71 per cent in 2005 down to 63 per cent today. The falls are especially acute amongst those in their 20s and 30s, where home ownership rates have almost halved since the early 1990s. No wonder we have trouble getting younger people to vote Conservative.

Home ownership is an inherently beneficial thing.

 

Source: Chris Philp: Cut Stamp Duty – and unleash a new Home Ownership Revolution | Conservative Home

‘I’ Newspaper: Rail Franchise System Not Working and Needs to be Changed


I agree the rail network could be much better and maybe the franchise contracts are to blame.

But when accounting blame which are purely down the train operators and which are down to rework Rail which is not a private company.

Before privatisation the Rail network, rolling stock, train stations and the line and signal infrastructure were need great need of investment.

The food was the butt of a joke, as the British Rail Sandwich was infamous as it curled up at the edges.

My own line was ‘The Midland, which was the poor relation in the industry as the rolling stock was secondhand, passed on from other regions.

In my 20 odd years of using British Railways and then British Rail I hardly ever got on and off a train that was to time.

The various Governments over that period showed a distinct lack of interest and investment into the industry. Hence all the new rolling stock was came about during Privatisation. This led to very outdated systems, not fit for the 19th century, let alone the 20th and then the 21st.

Who would have thought that Great Britain invented the Railways, through early train inventors who were Matthew Murray who created first steam powered locomotive, Richard Trevithick who popularized trains series of showcasing in London, George Stephenson who become famous for ‘The Rocket’ and for the coal transporting trains.

But were some of these private companies up to the job and this goes down to the Tender process and in many ways still does, the NHS, other parts of the health service, Local Government and other such services. As it appears any contract is given to the lowest bidder without any apparent investigation into the bids to ascertain if they are, in fact, viable.

This a fault of the tender process and the Governments administering the process.

Then what about the Contracts themselves are they effective and efficiently written?, do they meets the needs of the industry and the customers?, are the companies themselves sufficiently solvent? and many more investigative questions.

Here again the Governments are at fault.

There are indeed many problems, but to re-nationalise them, would this go back to British Railways and British Rail.

If it does, then the required investment needs to be guaranteed for way into the future and not be allowed to run on the whims of any Government as it was previously.

Much like the NHS and Social Care, especially Social Care today.

Governments need to realise that these industries and organisations are not there to be used for political purposes, but for the benefit of the population of the UK.

For until that realisation comes into any Government, these areas will continue to faulter to the whims of each and every Government, who only care for themselves, irrespective of its Party colour.

Beastrabban\'s Weblog

I found this report in the I newspaper on our country’s failing rail network. The article states that a recent report has found that the current system of rail franchising doesn’t work and cannot continue as it is. The article, ‘Rail franchising ‘no longer delivers clear benefits’, on page 4 of today’s paper, 27th February 2019, by Neil Lancefield runs

Britain’s rail franchise system no longer delivers clear benefits and cannot continue in its current form, according to the man leading an official review of the network.

Keith Williams told industry leaders that operators were not adapting to changing consumer demands.

The contracting out of passenger services has drawn heavy criticism, with some contracts failing and customer complaints rising. The rail industry has said it accepts that the status quo cannot continue.

Mr Williams was appointed by the Government last year to lead its “root-and-branch” Rail Review. Speaking in London…

View original post 511 more words

There’s a case for an ‘Amazon tax’, but it isn’t saving the high street | Conservative Home


Philip Hammond’s proposals for a so-called ‘Amazon tax’ on online retailers addresses a legitimate problem.

When multinational businesses can cut their tax bills despite soaring profits, that’s a sign of an ill-designed and out of date tax code. The Chancellor is right to take corrective measures.

However, there are two parts of the Amazon tax story which are concerning.

The first is Hammond’s stated willingness to press ahead with a levy on web giants even before he can secure international agreement – it would be bad for the buying public and the Government both if precipitate action were to make the UK an unattractive place to invest.

The second is that one of the arguments being adduced in favour of the new tax is to “create a level playing field” with ailing bricks-and-mortar retailers.

 

Source: There’s a case for an ‘Amazon tax’, but it isn’t saving the high street | Conservative Home

Related Articles

Iain Mansfield: To bring greater fairness to families, free childcare should be linked to the transferable tax allowance | Conservative Home


There is a profound unfairness in the way the state supports families with pre-school children. Whilst significant support is rightly offered, in the form of tax-free childcare and 30 hours of free childcare a week, to couples in which both parents work, nothing is offered to families in which one parent chooses to remain at home, caring full time for their children. This is not only deeply unjust, but it utterly undervalues the important work done by those – often, but by no means exclusively, women – who make this choice.

Many people argue that the Government should not impose one form of lifestyle upon families. But the status quo, by embedding such a large disparity in support, does precisely this: it strongly encourages a family in which both parents work and discourages the equally valid choice in which one parent chooses to look after their own children.  All subsidies distort choices, and at over £5,500 a year – about a fifth of the median household income – the level of disparity is of a scale to fundamentally distort the choices and options available to most families.

In reality, every family is different. In some families, it is absolutely right for them that both parents go back to work. In others it may be better, both for the parents and for the well-being of the children, if one parent – whether they are a man or a woman – stays at home to look after those children. It all depends on both the talents and inclination of the parents and the nature and needs of the children concerned. In an ideal society, each family would be able to make that choice depending on what was best for them and their children; however, under our current system, only the former is given support. This means that many parents are forced back to work as the only affordable option, even if when that is neither economically efficient nor what they wish to do. Increasingly, caring for one’s own children is becoming a luxury available only to those that have at least one high-earning parent.

 

Source: Iain Mansfield: To bring greater fairness to families, free childcare should be linked to the transferable tax allowance | Conservative Home

Donald Trump cuts Donald Trump’s taxes


As usual for Trump, a plan he proposes which will be more beneficial to himself and his wealthy and corporate associates than it will for the majority of Americans, even his own supporters.

Trump supporters have elected a person who is more interested in himself than the people who elected him into the Presidency.

Dear Kitty. Some blog

This video from the USA says about itself:

Trump Tax Reform Explained

27 September 2017

After failing to repeal and replace Obamacare, Trump is turning to tax reform. Ana Kasparian, Bren Mankiewicz, Michael Shure, the hosts of The Young Turks, show you what’s in his plan. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

“INDIANAPOLIS — President Trump on Wednesday began a full-throttle push to slash taxes and salvage what is left of his foundering legislative agenda in Congress, proposing a politically challenging array of tax cuts for individuals and businesses that would constitute the most sweeping changes to the federal tax code in decades.

Mr. Trump, smarting from the latest defeat this week of his efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, cast his tax plan as an economic imperative and the fulfillment of a promise to his coalition of working-class supporters to…

View original post 836 more words

Fact Check: could Labour raise £19.4 billion by reversing Conservative corporation tax cuts?


Based on this information, the £19.4 billion figure does seem reasonable. However, the increase in revenue would be dependent on the behaviour of companies not changing in the face of such a marked rate increase. Previous academic studies have shown how both individuals and organisations change their financial behaviour when relevant taxes are introduced, abolished or altered.

These changes in behaviour can take two main forms. Changes in tax planning could push companies to minimise their taxable profits in the UK. While changes in strategy and investment could make companies invest less in the UK, which would affect economic growth – and tax returns through corporation tax.

This means that the amount raised through corporation tax can be unpredictable and shows no immediate association with the underlying rate of tax. There is evidence of this in UK corporation tax receipts over recent years. While the main rate of corporation tax has continually decreased since it was introduced in its current form in 1973, the receipts generated have remained generally buoyant.

No tax exists in a bubble. Even if a company does not take any steps to counteract the change in tax rate and pays an increased amount of corporation tax, this will reduce its post-tax profits which will affect either its customers (in the form of increased prices), employees (through decreased wages), or shareholders (through decreases in dividends). Decreases in consumer spending, wages and dividends are then likely to result in decreases in tax receipts from excise duties, VAT, income tax and national insurance.

Source: Fact Check: could Labour raise £19.4 billion by reversing Conservative corporation tax cuts?