Re: Coronavirus
 

. . . and is this 'borrow and pay back long term' acounting for all the borrowing we will need to be doing when we're all locked down this winter, and the next, and the next?

Lots of 'experts' say the virus will be around a long time ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sunak needs to take the opportunity to restructure taxes. Introduce a discrete NHS tax, reduce business rates on shops etc.

Re: Coronavirus
 

My solution is that the richest generation ever starts paying, instead of burdening the next generation. Time to get your wallet out, mind the moths....

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes i bet you and John Redwood would love a flat income tax !
Make the poor poorer and the rich richer. Is he the MP/Sheriff of Nottingham ! :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

You put tax on large gambling winnings. If you are broke there won't be a lot of difference between winning £100M or £90M it's still life changing and there's an extra £10M in government coffers. Extend that to wins abroad, foreign lotteries and the like.

The difficulty would be defining "large win" so that lots of small wins accumulated would not be counted where maybe it should. Maybe everyone gets a winnings allowance and over that is taxed but policing and collecting that would be hard.

But whatever happens I bet (groan!) the really rich would find ways to avoid it, so I guess could really big winners, e.g. put the money abroad, have a credit card linked to that and away you go, the money never sees the UK, never taxed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

So you'd prefer austerity?

Re: Coronavirus
 

He prefers anything that involves attacking the current government. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Always good to get different ideas on things but a flat income tax rate has been shown not to work in the UK.
There's a lot of work that can be done to simplify taxation in the UK. But each successive government just makes it more complicated. Great for professional services firms and publishers of worthy tomes on the matter biut less so for the rest of us.
Amnyway, I digress, my final comment on the matter. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Matt Hancock called out by the Statitcs Authority "“The aim seems to be to show the largest possible number of tests, even at the expense of understanding,” Sir David David Norgrove, chair of the UK Statistics Authority wrote.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-06-02/...navirus-tests/

Full letter here:
https://www.statisticsauthority.gov....-testing-data/

Re: Coronavirus
 

If nobody seeks a test then the figures are always going to be low, unless you start dragging people off the streets to test them.


The question should be "how many tests a day could be performed, if required".

Re: Coronavirus
 

Never mind tests, the question really should be, why does the UK have the most Covid deaths in Europe? You have to look at those running the country really....

---------- Post added at 18:43 ---------- Previous post was at 18:42 ----------

I prefer you and me reaching in our pockets and paying more tax OB ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you have more people bringing it into the country, then you will have more cases. If you then have inside gatherings(religious of whatever sort and others) of various sizes, then it's going to spread easily. If certain religious groups such as those in South Korea, don't mix much with others, that will limit spreading.


Too many people don't pay tax and therefore there's a disconnect between levels of spending and it's impact upon them. They wouldn't be bothered with voting for a trebling of spending, because it would have no direct effect on their income. The indirect effect is another matter, and one they wouldn't be made aware of.