CyclopsRock
Member
Yeah, you're basically out of luck. The Tories have put in tax breaks for the games industry but not really done the other 3. But nor has anyone else so....
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
May 7th | UK General Election 2015 OT - Please go vote!
- Thread starter Volotaire
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, you're basically out of luck. The Tories have put in tax breaks for the games industry but not really done the other 3. But nor has anyone else so....
Mr. Luchador
Member
Yeah, I guess I have a lot of reading to do to see who fits the bill the best.
jimbobsmells
Member
I think that's a really good list to base your vote on. (well, everything except retrospective student fees as I've paid my £30k+ off so are they going to reinburse me or what?)
You would think that it's not that difficult to find a party that would support those few points, but there you go.
Because I'm a soldier for the proletariat determined to wipe out these corporate fat cats getting rich off the blood of the working class.
Wait no, it's because I've seen (and enjoy watching) the show and it derives entertainment from them being dicks to the people who come on. To be honest I was mainly thinking of the Screenwipe section on it where they're described as bastards.
Why are you so pissed off?
Wrestlemania
Banned
Clarkson.
Jezbollah
Member
I certainly don't qualify as a "smarter" person here (lol) but having a good think about it on my long drive to work today, I don't see this working out as well as Balls & co believe it will. I can see lots of people who are affected by it either using loopholes to avoid it, or fucking off to some other country to live there.
It's a vote getter, above all. I dont see how it earns more revenue vs the current arrangements in the long term.
The best thing about Labour's Non-Domicile policy thus far was Tory Education secretary Nicky Morgan's performance on Today. The Tories don't know how to respond to this, it has them in a bind. They can't say it's a good idea, but they look like they're supporting tax dodging even if they go down the talent and money flight route they're still left defending the inherent unfairness (which is why they've not done so). They've got 3 default attacks on this Labour policy (well 2 really the 3rd is just insulting)
The first attack is the policy doesn't really do anything. It's tinkering around the edges.
Which of course opens them up to well why haven't you tightening the rules in a similar way. Which brings them to their next attack. The Coalition has already tightened the rules so Labour's approach is pointless.
But that opens them up to if you think people based here should pay taxes here why are you arguing against the Labour policy or not bringing one yourself. Which results in the most pathetic attack/defense a sitting government can ever have after 5 years.
Whether you think it's a good policy by Labour or not, it's certainly good politics from them (I'm actually surprised they came up with it and had the balls (egh) to do it). The Tories don't really have a way to respond to it without pissing off a large number of their donors.
The first attack is the policy doesn't really do anything. It's tinkering around the edges.
Which of course opens them up to well why haven't you tightening the rules in a similar way. Which brings them to their next attack. The Coalition has already tightened the rules so Labour's approach is pointless.
But that opens them up to if you think people based here should pay taxes here why are you arguing against the Labour policy or not bringing one yourself. Which results in the most pathetic attack/defense a sitting government can ever have after 5 years.
Whether you think it's a good policy by Labour or not, it's certainly good politics from them (I'm actually surprised they came up with it and had the balls (egh) to do it). The Tories don't really have a way to respond to it without pissing off a large number of their donors.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
Scrapping non-dom status is a very good thing. The nom-doms will not be leaving- nowhere else offers non-dom status, after all.
The idea that people can defend a colonial tax dodge from the works of Pitt the Younger tells you everything about what they stand for.
The idea that people can defend a colonial tax dodge from the works of Pitt the Younger tells you everything about what they stand for.
The problem for the Tories is arguing against it is a pretty indefensible position because the current system is fundamentally unfair and open to abuse.
It can be very difficult to argue for an unfair tax purely on the basis of yield. It opens up so many logical fallacies if you extend that approach. And in this case the issue of yield hasn't been answered one way or another.
After all the FT of all places had a leader piece on why scrapping non dom status would be a good thing last week (which is where I think Labour nicked the idea from.)
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't think it's fundamentally unfair, though it IS open to abuse. I don't think it's inherently unfair that someone not pay tax on income that wasn't earned in the UK or from customers in the UK. Where this isn't the case - ie, loopholes are being used - then it's wrong, but it's not inherently wrong imo.
No, it pretty much is. It's unheard of in pretty much every other Western country. If I live here but earn money abroad I'm taxed on it (https://www.gov.uk/tax-foreign-income/overview). A non dom is not. You have people with nondom status who have lived here all their lives because their father was born elsewhere, or because they left the country for a number of years for work (in the case one HSBC executive).
Now if you're arguing the idea of the UK taxing anyone on income earned abroad isn't particularly fair in of itself. I wouldn't necessarily disagree.
CyclopsRock
Member
CyclopsRock said:
That's exactly what I think should happen. If businesses operate in another country, they can make a local business in that place. Individuals can't, and it doesn't make much sense imo.QuicheFontaine
Member
Regarding the bolded...yeah that's not gonna happen :-(
I don't really know who to vote for either. Lib Dem last time, but I've not been impressed with their performance in government. Plus my local MP didn't reply to my email >:-(
Still, can't see him losing this one with such a majority. From the Bristol West wiki, there's a party called 'Class War', which sounds fun. Maybe I'll go for that.
CyclopsRock
Member
I wonder which class they fight for? The Middle, hopefully.
Are student loans that much of drain for people?
I've always seen them as a risk free loan. the government is essentially investing in you.
I have no idea who to vote for if i'm honest. anyone that supports the industry I work in ( games ) and wants to push computing at schools in a big way will get my vote probably.
I've always seen them as a risk free loan. the government is essentially investing in you.
I have no idea who to vote for if i'm honest. anyone that supports the industry I work in ( games ) and wants to push computing at schools in a big way will get my vote probably.
Looks like the Tories have found a credible response to the nondom issue.
Turns out in January Ed Balls on Radio Leeds, said he thought that getting rid of non doms would cost money.
He's got a bit of wiggle room in that he can say he's looked at the XYZ figures and now thinks it'll be a net positive but it completely takes the air out of what was a very good route of attack for Labour.
I know Ed stuck with Balls for internal political reasons but dearie me he's terrible.
Turns out in January Ed Balls on Radio Leeds, said he thought that getting rid of non doms would cost money.
He's got a bit of wiggle room in that he can say he's looked at the XYZ figures and now thinks it'll be a net positive but it completely takes the air out of what was a very good route of attack for Labour.
I know Ed stuck with Balls for internal political reasons but dearie me he's terrible.
Reduction down to £6k under Labour is probably the best you can hope for. Retrospectively isn't going to happen.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I'm not sure. Naturally I'll read their manifesto before crossing their box, but a glance at the wiki tells me they held demos called 'Bash the Rich', so I guess that rules out Upper!
Edit:
I wouldn't call mine a drain, or even particularly noticeable. I graduated with about £10k of debt, it comes out of my pay packet at around ~£100 a month (money I don't "miss" since my pay cheques have always included it) and at the current rate it should be gone by the time I'm 31/32. Not a big deal.
I do have a lot of sympathy for more recent graduates though, who must look at the total figure and realise that it's probably never going to be paid off. Disheartening.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
If by "retrospectively" you mean for the previous year then that's doable. If you mean more than one year or even indefinitely then you're crazy.
When the SNP abolished the bullshit Graduate Endowment Fee in 2008 it covered those who graduated in 2007 but not 2006 or further back than that.
it is disheartening. but there's no risk involved in it. if the debt is unpaid it gets written off. if you don't earn over £16,910 (if you started before 2012) £21,000 if after, you don't pay a penny.
I must have like £30k in total due to maintinance and tuition loans over 4 years, is it bad that I'm not worried about it?
CyclopsRock
Member
Getting rid of your student loan is akin to a ~8% payrise for me. So not a burden but it'll be nice when it fucks right off.
Yeah, it being gone would be a nice boost to the monthly wage. But id argue it isnt as important as some are making it out to be, and it comes across as a rather selfish request all things considered
As has been said, you lose something like £70-100 per month from your pay which isn't terrible given that hopefully your degree helped you get the job or career in the first place. I have about £21k of student loan debt, they also put interest on that regularly so it's paid back pretty slowly. It is totally risk free though as you say.
I'd say it's worth it but I only paid around £3250 per year tuition fees. I'd still have gone to Uni at £9k but I still think that's too high and welcome moves to reduce it.
Matt_
World's #1 One Direction Fan: Everyone else in the room can see it, everyone else but you~~~
as someone graduating this year its pretty shit knowing Im coming out of an education with £35k worth of debt, but honestly because theyre not normal loans its not really a concern. It will be written off long before I can actually pay it off
That being said university being so expensive (even if you don't pay for it out of your own pocket) is putting people off going, I know multiple people that wont consider university because of the debt
QuicheFontaine
Member
And this I think is bad for everyone else!
I mean, I guess it's not your fault - the loans are there on offer after all - but clearly the system can't work if a large number of students never pay it off.
CyclopsRock
Member
No, I agree entirely. Most aspects of public spending have to be shared, either wholly or in part because of the nature of how they work. You can't have only the victims of crime pay for the police or only people that use parks pay for their upkeep. But there are some things that so overwhelmingly benefit a single person that it's reasonable to want them to pay for it themselves, you just have to work out if it's practical. I think this is one case where it is - it's set up to ensure you only pay it back if you're earning something close to the average wage. It means you don't have a situation where cleaners on the minimum wage are subsidising their boss's education. And ultimately, whilst everyone benefits from a well educated workforce, the person that gets the degree is the overwhelmingly chief beneficiary. And this isn't something like a park or a new bypass - a huge aspect of getting a degree (as opposed to, say, simply reading books) is to boost your own income. I think that if you can find a fair and reasonable way to have the benefit that benefit most to pay for their own education, I don't have a problem with it.
That said, a lot of people - around the time when the tuition fees were raised to £9k - were suggesting a higher education tax instead. Well, that's basically what we have, only you can eventually pay it off if you earn enough. IMO this is the ideal solution, short of a quasi-American bursarys-and-scholarships-paid-for-by-huge-donations-by-wealthy-alumni system.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I mean, it works basically the same way as it used to - government used to meet all the cost, now it only meets the cost of defaulted on debt, which is less unless the interest rate was high and the debt was defaulted on relatively late.
QuicheFontaine
Member
The government met the cost when there were far fewer universities and students though.
RandyBobandy
Banned
Couple of my friends in England told me they're not even gonna vote. When your choices are a pair of slimy cunts they'd rather not vote
Think I could vote too if I was actually still in the country
Think I could vote too if I was actually still in the country
it doesn't really make much difference to anyone else. its always cost £12k total per student, per year. The Gov is just subsidising it a lot less than they were. I'd bet the overall amount spent by the government ends up being the same due to unpaid loans. its just offsetting the timing of the debt :/
CyclopsRock
Member
Neither of my housemates are gonna vote. I could quite conceivably steal their votes by just going in 3 times.
I won't. But I could.
I won't. But I could.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'm not convinced the difference was huge, the main reason university numbers increased so sharply was because of the incorporation of polytechnics which did have a grants system.
jimbobsmells
Member
StealthGoblin
Banned
As a teacher I really want the government to back off from Education.
We have had horrible instances of the requirements of a school (planning, teaching, assessment, ethos, requirements of the website, published data, leadership) changing drastically in recent years and then the inspectors show up.
I personally think that if you make a change, you shouldn't be allowed to be inspected for a set period of time. There have been some fantastic schools and management teams ripped to shreds by Ofsted because they were putting the children and education first and not endless paperwork. Ofsted had their list of requirements, didn't see them and the school was put in a RI or Special Measures category.
Our school recently had an unofficial visit from someone who recently left Ofsted in a high position to look at our SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disability) support. Not only has the entire framework changed in recent months, our local LEA has given us little to no support and hasn't published documents they are legally required to do. Based on what she saw, we'd go into 'Requires Improvement' even though our data shows that SEND children make excellent progress in our school. It is absurd.
The government really need to respect the teaching profession more and listen to us. We live and breathe schools 7 days a week.We need to stop comparing our schools to Finland, China etc and devise a system that works well for us, without stealing tiny good ideas from elsewhere.
I haven't seen any of the major parties propose anything remotely acceptable when it comes to education so I won't be voting.
Our local authority is categorised as 'Fringe London'. We barely have enough teachers as it is, and if someone were to drive 10 minutes more they'd be in a 'Central London' area and would automatically be paid about 4-5k more per year. Speaking to someone who is head of one of the employment pools, they estimate that our area needs 40 NQTs this year. How many applied for the pool? 13.
Thanks for making teaching attractive to everyone successive governments.
We have had horrible instances of the requirements of a school (planning, teaching, assessment, ethos, requirements of the website, published data, leadership) changing drastically in recent years and then the inspectors show up.
I personally think that if you make a change, you shouldn't be allowed to be inspected for a set period of time. There have been some fantastic schools and management teams ripped to shreds by Ofsted because they were putting the children and education first and not endless paperwork. Ofsted had their list of requirements, didn't see them and the school was put in a RI or Special Measures category.
Our school recently had an unofficial visit from someone who recently left Ofsted in a high position to look at our SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disability) support. Not only has the entire framework changed in recent months, our local LEA has given us little to no support and hasn't published documents they are legally required to do. Based on what she saw, we'd go into 'Requires Improvement' even though our data shows that SEND children make excellent progress in our school. It is absurd.
The government really need to respect the teaching profession more and listen to us. We live and breathe schools 7 days a week.We need to stop comparing our schools to Finland, China etc and devise a system that works well for us, without stealing tiny good ideas from elsewhere.
I haven't seen any of the major parties propose anything remotely acceptable when it comes to education so I won't be voting.
Our local authority is categorised as 'Fringe London'. We barely have enough teachers as it is, and if someone were to drive 10 minutes more they'd be in a 'Central London' area and would automatically be paid about 4-5k more per year. Speaking to someone who is head of one of the employment pools, they estimate that our area needs 40 NQTs this year. How many applied for the pool? 13.
Thanks for making teaching attractive to everyone successive governments.
Neither of my housemates are gonna vote. I could quite conceivably steal their votes by just going in 3 times.
I won't. But I could.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Well, I don't have numbers either way. But I just feel like we're stacking up a lot of pain for the future, and I mean like 50-60 years in the future, when money that was on the books as 'a loan' suddenly changes to 'disappeared'.
CyclopsRock
Member
28 and 29 (I think! I should know, one of them's my brother...)
They're both well educated, relatively politically engaged, and both work at a commidity trader in the City, living in (relatively) central London. I think part of the problem, at least, is that we're in such a solid Labour seat that there really isn't much point - Labour have 11.5k votes on their 2nd place rival Lib Dems. I'm only voting so I can sneakily wank in the booth.
Jezbollah
Member
I just saw a tweet regarding this. Oh dear.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
As the Tories said, Balls said this:
I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up. That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.
But Balls also added at the end:
But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.
Which was conveniently edited out of the Tory propaganda.
There's also this video of Tory Richard Bacon ranting about Non-Doms at a select committee:
Tories are struggling big time with this. It's a vote winner and indefensible.
The idea that something Ed Balls said in January would stop this line of attack is silly. Politics doesn't work that way, neither does public opinion. It's no where near strong enough to deflect from what is a very popular policy change.
Of course, just like nationalising the railways, I expect labour to back away from it instantly in an attempt to stop the Daily Mail attacking them...
Of course, just like nationalising the railways, I expect labour to back away from it instantly in an attempt to stop the Daily Mail attacking them...
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Oh, I agree with that. I think there was a paper published relatively recently that said the increased amount of students defaulting actually means the government will pay more (as a result of interest rate rises) than they would have under the old £3k rates where the government paid more up front. I'll have a see if I can find it.
StealthGoblin
Banned
I've done my calculations and I'll never pay off my full amount. I've got over 30k still to go.
CyclopsRock
Member
jimbobsmells
Member
Interesting, thanks. I tend to assume those who don't want to vote are slightly younger than that.
I'm in a very similar situation, early 30s, work in finance in the City, but live in Fulham so that's a Tory lock. Won't stop me putting my cross down for Labour this time though. Maybe with a little wank too why not.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
A bit like a credit card
...ish? Depends on whether our GDP increases more than the interest rate on student debt.
Oh you.
The people go on by choice, expecting critique and hopefully get help.
Business is tough in the real world.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked