View Full Version : What does our UK contingent...
...think about this:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39265847/comid/3#comments_top
megabyteme
09-20-2010, 07:18 PM
I believe this is relevant to all of us. And I think it has several different implications depending on which "hat" we are wearing:
As an American, I feel it is highly intrusive. How would this instant info change how Social Security/Welfare benefits be distributed. Instead of quarterly/yearly updates, could one be cut off instantly for working too much overtime?
As an employee, I feel it distances me from easy correction of errors. With banks charging HUGE fees for overdrafts, and many of us living mostly check-to-check, this could be a major concern. One that there would be no recourse for.
As a taxpayer, I can see the benefits to "the system" of having accurate, up-to-date accounting info. Everyone cries fro "balanced budgets", this might be a step in the right direction.
As an employer (I'm not), I could see some changes involving good and bad months. How often do businesses need to "dip" into the money reserved for quarterly taxes to make ends meet? This happens, right? Wouldn't it be devastating to a small business to no longer get to utilize that now-available resource?
I remember being able to "float checks" based on the delay it used to take banks to transfer/claim money from each other. As the banking system became quicker, this was no longer possible. Shouldn't the government be quicker in collecting the taxes it uses to provide services?
So, for me, this is a bit mixed, but a very worthy topic for discussion. I am certain we will all find ourselves involved in a similar situation before too long.
I think this boils down to a few salient questions:
Do you feel you, as a free individual, should be subservient a "system"?
A system formulated and operated by those we generously refer to as "politicians"?
I, for one, do not.
megabyteme
09-21-2010, 06:12 AM
Like it, or not, we are part of a system. And there certainly are benefits to being part of our system. Many other countries have completely corrupt, and inefficient governmental systems.
Some refinement and efficiency is a good thing.
However, just the same as I do not want the "efficiency" of a security camera on every corner, and every mile of highway, I do not want the government to be the direct controller of all payroll and the first hand in the cookie jar.This "wiggle room" in our system makes it imperfect, but it feels a lot more like freedom than one with absolute security and accounting practices.
bigboab
09-21-2010, 09:32 AM
Do you feel you, as a free individual, should be subservient a "system"?
It is the rich who will do do somersaults to avoid paying taxes that evoke the thought of this type of taxation.
As for being 'subservient' to a system. What about the kids fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan who are taken from their homes and made to fight and die thousands of miles from home. Unlike prisoners, they are not allowed visits from their relatives or allowed to sue the state if the toilet rolls are not good enough quality.:whistling
999969999
09-21-2010, 02:48 PM
This is scary. I hope the United States is a long way from doing something like this.
I can see how the government might do this with large employers like Wal-Mart or McDonalds, but I wonder how it would work for something like cattle ranching? Would our customers have to pay the government for our grass fed beef and then we would have to wait for the government to pay us after taking out taxes and other fees? What a mess!
Do you feel you, as a free individual, should be subservient a "system"?
It is the rich who will do do somersaults to avoid paying taxes that evoke the thought of this type of taxation.
I don't know how things are over there, Bob, but over here somersaults (outside any gymnastic context) are generally looked upon as a sort of celebratory...exultation.
As for being 'subservient' to a system. What about the kids fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan who are taken from their homes and made to fight and die thousands of miles from home. Unlike prisoners, they are not allowed visits from their relatives or allowed to sue the state if the toilet rolls are not good enough quality.:whistling
Truth, now-
You sue Blighty over toilet rolls?
What do you get if you win?
I can see how the government might do this with large employers like Wal-Mart or McDonalds, but I wonder how it would work for something like cattle ranching? Would our customers have to pay the government for our grass fed beef and then we would have to wait for the government to pay us after taking out taxes and other fees? What a mess!
Oh, there is so much more to this than you've alluded to - it's already happening, and it's been going on for quite some time.
Our government already can do/does the former - there is a difference, however, between the risk of it happening (an audit, perhaps), and making it a government imperative.The latter literally infests our tax code; anything referred to as a credit qualifies.
bigboab
09-23-2010, 08:18 AM
It is the rich who will do do somersaults to avoid paying taxes that evoke the thought of this type of taxation.
I don't know how things are over there, Bob, but over here somersaults (outside any gymnastic context) are generally looked upon as a sort of celebratory...exultation.
As for being 'subservient' to a system. What about the kids fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan who are taken from their homes and made to fight and die thousands of miles from home. Unlike prisoners, they are not allowed visits from their relatives or allowed to sue the state if the toilet rolls are not good enough quality.:whistling
Truth, now-
You sue Blighty over toilet rolls?
What do you get if you win?
Probably a roll of paper with the queens head printed on it. I was oversating slightly.:whistling They have sued and won a lot of money because some of the antiquated prisons did not have proper toilet facilities and they were still required to 'slop out'.
Back on track:-
These proposed systems could be O.K. if correctly implemented. A massive blunder was made recently by HRMC, resulting in confusion as to who owns what and to whom.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1309639/Tax-blunder-rebellion-Experts-urge-1-4m-pay-taxmans-mistake.html
All I see is the slippery slope of outright socialism.
At the moment this couldn't happen in uk. We are the middle of a Gov. spending review, (Massive Cutbacks!) this includes all large scale ICT projects. Therefore maybe when we've balanced our deficit they'll try it again.
Squeamous
10-01-2010, 12:20 PM
I think this boils down to a few salient questions:
Do you feel you, as a free individual, should be subservient a "system"?
A system formulated and operated by those we generously refer to as "politicians"?
I, for one, do not.
All I see is the slippery slope of outright socialism.
I don't see what this has at all to do with socialism, although as a socialist I wish it did.
What I see here is HMRC attempting to redistribute money from business to the country's coffers in a more streamlined and accurate way. If I were being cynical I might mention that by getting its hands on the cash up to 12 months in advance it is also getting its hands on the interest it will accrue if say, the money was still not classed as 'available' until the end of the tax year. I can see why businesses would be pissed off, because they have less virtual money hanging around to play with. It seems similar to the way the banks hold our cheques in transit before crediting them to our accounts to squeeze a bit more out of us. The Student Loans company already does a similar thing by not crediting accounts until the end of the tax year, meaning the student is still being charged interest throughout the year on parts of a loan they paid off in April.
As for the 'don't make me part of the system man....!' stuff, as has already been said, we are all part of a system. As Doug Stanhope says, the only time you're not part of a system is the split second you come screaming out of your mother's womb. It's best to just get over it and accept it.
All I see is the slippery slope of outright socialism.
I don't see what this has at all to do with socialism, although as a socialist I wish it did.
What I see here is HMRC attempting to redistribute money from business to the country's coffers in a more streamlined and accurate way. If I were being cynical I might mention that by getting its hands on the cash up to 12 months in advance it is also getting its hands on the interest it will accrue if say, the money was still not classed as 'available' until the end of the tax year. I can see why businesses would be pissed off, because they have less virtual money hanging around to play with. It seems similar to the way the banks hold our cheques in transit before crediting them to our accounts to squeeze a bit more out of us. The Student Loans company already does a similar thing by not crediting accounts until the end of the tax year, meaning the student is still being charged interest throughout the year on parts of a loan they paid off in April.
As for the 'don't make me part of the system man....!' stuff, as has already been said, we are all part of a system. As Doug Stanhope says, the only time you're not part of a system is the split second you come screaming out of your mother's womb. It's best to just get over it and accept it.
Good God, um, (I-can't remember-your-name-and-I-feel-horrible-about-it).
You know, I recall you (no, not you, but Sonja) recently made a case somewhere on this board about your bottom-line distaste for anal sex.
Some others of us agree on that particular point, and wish our fiscal-anal orifices to remain unsullied.
Is it too much to ask.
Oh, ffs.
bigboab
10-02-2010, 04:19 AM
All I see is the slippery slope of outright socialism.
The unfortunate should not have to depend on good samaritans. Not too many of those around at the moment.
All I see is the slippery slope of outright socialism.
The unfortunate should not have to depend on good samaritans. Not too many of those around at the moment.
I will settle for saying, then, that federal samaritanism is inefficient and inadequate, and I'd rather see it handled at the state level.
clocker
10-02-2010, 02:06 PM
The unfortunate should not have to depend on good samaritans. Not too many of those around at the moment.
I will settle for saying, then, that federal samaritanism is inefficient and inadequate, and I'd rather see it handled at the state level.
Is your state solvent enough to handle the load?
I will settle for saying, then, that federal samaritanism is inefficient and inadequate, and I'd rather see it handled at the state level.
Is your state solvent enough to handle the load?
If the feds would cooperate, absolutely.
clocker
10-03-2010, 08:59 PM
What sort of "cooperation" did you have in mind?
Your state has one of the nation's highest unemployment rates, your school system ranks in the bottom third and your infrastructure (roads, waterways and pollution control) is dismal.
How does a state cope with these sorts of issues without federal aid?
Especially while lowering taxes.
Just curious.
Let us keep our own money without feeding the D.C. bureaucracy.
Just out of curiosity, where does "federal" money come, from, mon frere?
clocker
10-04-2010, 12:14 AM
From federal taxes, silly person.
I'm not sure what your ratio is but I know that Alaska gets $6 back for every $1 they submit.
Love to see how Sarah would work with just the money produced instate without the federal subsidies she claims to hate so much.
I would suspect that your state also gets back more than it sends in.
So, let's get that damned federal bureaucracy off your humble back...how do you fund a crumbling infrastructure with a highly unemployed populace and corporations fleeing the state to go overseas?
From federal taxes, silly person.
I'm not sure what your ratio is but I know that Alaska gets $6 back for every $1 they submit.
Love to see how Sarah would work with just the money produced instate without the federal subsidies she claims to hate so much.
I would suspect that your state also gets back more than it sends in.
So, let's get that damned federal bureaucracy off your humble back...how do you fund a crumbling infrastructure with a highly unemployed populace and corporations fleeing the state to go overseas?
So Alaska is your ultimate test-case?
Fine - keep the federal fundage and they can drill in ANWR.
They'd take that, you betcha.
Michigan would be fine as well.
clocker
10-05-2010, 12:32 AM
No, Alaska is just an example...one of many.
BTW, ANWR output has been declining, along with it, the royalty checks that every Alaskan pockets yearly.
It's causing quite a problem up there.
How, specifically, will Michigan "be fine"?
Wasn't manufacturing your big revenue stream?
999969999
10-08-2010, 09:53 PM
What sort of "cooperation" did you have in mind?
Your state has one of the nation's highest unemployment rates, your school system ranks in the bottom third and your infrastructure (roads, waterways and pollution control) is dismal.
How does a state cope with these sorts of issues without federal aid?
Especially while lowering taxes.
Just curious.
What's sad is that it is the federal government that led to these situations in the first place, and now many states are on life support from the very same monsterous government that forced them into the economic coma. It makes me sick to think about my own future. You people did this to my generation and now we are going to be left with all these problems to solve and no manufacturing base, no national wealth left behind to deal with it.
clocker
10-09-2010, 01:17 AM
What's sad is that it is the federal government that led to these situations in the first place, and now many states are on life support from the very same monsterous government that forced them into the economic coma. .
Elucidate, please.
How did the federal govt. force Michigan into a coma?
bigboab
10-09-2010, 07:40 AM
What sort of "cooperation" did you have in mind?
Your state has one of the nation's highest unemployment rates, your school system ranks in the bottom third and your infrastructure (roads, waterways and pollution control) is dismal.
How does a state cope with these sorts of issues without federal aid?
Especially while lowering taxes.
Just curious.
What's sad is that it is the federal government that led to these situations in the first place, and now many states are on life support from the very same monsterous government that forced them into the economic coma. It makes me sick to think about my own future. You people did this to my generation and now we are going to be left with all these problems to solve and no manufacturing base, no national wealth left behind to deal with it.
How can you blame the Government? The worlds economic mess was/is caused by greedy businessmen try to screw every buck they can out of transactions. Transferring their manufacturing base abroad because labour is cheaper. Governments should impose higher import taxes on goods that were originally manufactured in the country. I know it is a two way sword but thing would eventually settle down.
Oh! I nearly forgot the main cause of the recent recession. Yuppies gambling and losing vast amounts of money that does not belong to them
. More Government control is needed in that area. I am trying to find what the common working man did to cause the recession. When I find out I will come back to you on that.
999969999
10-12-2010, 02:53 PM
What's sad is that it is the federal government that led to these situations in the first place, and now many states are on life support from the very same monsterous government that forced them into the economic coma. .
Elucidate, please.
How did the federal govt. force Michigan into a coma?
Well, for starters, the E.P.A. regulations have been like a noose around the auto manufacturing industry's neck for a long time. And labor laws favoring unions certainly haven't helped, either.
As in the lyrics to the song "Illiterature" by Adam Schmitt: "We've got no chance to change the world, it's dumped on us to save it."
How true!
999969999
10-12-2010, 02:54 PM
What's sad is that it is the federal government that led to these situations in the first place, and now many states are on life support from the very same monsterous government that forced them into the economic coma. It makes me sick to think about my own future. You people did this to my generation and now we are going to be left with all these problems to solve and no manufacturing base, no national wealth left behind to deal with it.
How can you blame the Government? The worlds economic mess was/is caused by greedy businessmen try to screw every buck they can out of transactions. Transferring their manufacturing base abroad because labour is cheaper. Governments should impose higher import taxes on goods that were originally manufactured in the country. I know it is a two way sword but thing would eventually settle down.
Oh! I nearly forgot the main cause of the recent recession. Yuppies gambling and losing vast amounts of money that does not belong to them
. More Government control is needed in that area. I am trying to find what the common working man did to cause the recession. When I find out I will come back to you on that.
I agree with you about tariffs. We could fund our government programs with tariffs and encourage factories to come back here with tariffs. Donald Trump agrees with this idea as well.
clocker
10-13-2010, 11:32 PM
Well, for starters, the E.P.A. regulations have been like a noose around the auto manufacturing industry's neck for a long time.
So it wasn't shoddy assembly, lackadaisical design and refusal to invest in their own infrastructure that hurt the Big Three...it was the EPA all along.
What an interesting piece of nonsense.
Donald Trump agrees with this idea as well.
You're killing me with irony.
Squeamous
02-27-2011, 01:53 AM
Good God, um, (I-can't remember-your-name-and-I-feel-horrible-about-it).
You know, I recall you (no, not you, but Sonja) recently made a case somewhere on this board about your bottom-line distaste for anal sex.
Some others of us agree on that particular point, and wish our fiscal-anal orifices to remain unsullied.
Is it too much to ask.
Oh, ffs.
Get over yourself you big poof. You're not worth even a fraction of the amount of money you have and you know it x
I don't live in the UK, so not allowed to post, so I'm just posting to confirm that Kevin is a big poof.
Other than that, the link is dead, so I can't see what it says really, all I've got is the headline. Working from that (and some googling), I'm not quite sure what this would change for the average worker, though. I mean, assuming the system works smoothly (hahahaha) workers with steady employment will still get their money once per month or whatever, and the taxes should presumably be about the same, just harder to dodge now.
Other than the initial hit (through additional taxes bearing the costs of putting the system in place) I don't really see the problem for employers or employees. This should mean that employers don't have to do the paperwork, meaning it saves them money, and the employees pay their taxes as they earn their money.
I'd be pissed if I was in the habit of dodging taxes though, as this would make it harder.
Taxes on the money I earn already get paid before I even see it, and that works. A system like this would preclude an employer telling me they've sent that money on but haven't, meaning I've effectively not paid any taxes (has happened).
Obviously, someone is gonna fuck up, but it might as well be the government, rather than employers, as government can't grab your money and run off to Canada. If it means delaying people from getting their money though, the big losers are going to be people who don't earn the same every month. Both government and employers come out on top here, the way I see this. Less work and thus less costs for employers, more efficient tax collection for government.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.