The Brexit Thread (topical thread)

[Szuchow]

Rampant socialist polices

Again, my morbid curiosity strikes: Which ones, and why are they socialist?

If gov does things it's socialism and if it does many things then it is communism.

[Aractus]

On the plus side though, anyone else thinking of leaving the EU only has to look at the UK to see why it's a bad idea.

Pfft. If the country to leave is Greece or Italy, they're not holding a referendum and then triggering Article 50 the way the UK did. They will crash out.

[Thethingaboutitis]

On the plus side though, anyone else thinking of leaving the EU only has to look at the UK to see why it's a bad idea.

Pfft. If the country to leave is Greece or Italy, they're not holding a referendum and then triggering Article 50 the way the UK did. They will crash out.

They won't though. The EU doesn't just allow countries to crash out, there are safeguards in place that have been used in the past (Portugal, Greece, Ireland) that will be used in the future.

[Aractus]

So many things you write are viewed from the Australian pov where the UK leaving the EU to get a free trade agreement with Australia is a good thing... even though The government’s own calculations estimate that the deal will have a negligible long-term contribution to the British economy, forecasting it will increase UK GDP by only 0.08%, or £2.3bn a year, by 2035.
How does that compare with the long term "2-3% of GDP" loss that leaving the EU caused?

What? I just said the divorce cost will only go down through renegotiating trading terms with the EU. That assumes there's still an EU to negotiate with.

Or scrap the CAP - you'll see an economic benefit of 2-3% of GDP if you do that.

Anyway, the EU does not control each country's VAT rates. That's all internal to each country.
https://www.globalvatcompliance.com/glob...rope-2021/:
"The European Union (EU) has mandated VAT tax for all its member states, which are required to implement and enforce it in accordance with the EU VAT code.

Yes I'm aware of how it works. What business is it of the EU to set a minimum rate of 15%? You see nothing wrong with that?

[Rhythmcs]

Are you asking what the purpose of the vat is and why governments are in the business of setting them at whatever rate? The short answer is that it's supposed to help the wealthy by taxing consumption rather than income. That's the business. Are you asking why governing bodies like standardized rates? To eliminate market distortion and reduce unfair competitive advantages based solely between various localities based on tax havens - which will then consume tax revenue from other places all the same.

We may as well ask why any government is in the business of setting any mandatory minimum anythings, unless there's some more specific objection in mind. Taxes, wages, speeds, fines, sentences...the list goes on and on.

[Minimalist]

Rampant socialist polices

Again, my morbid curiosity strikes: Which ones, and why are they socialist?

Unless they help rich motherfuckers get richer.... then it is called "business as usual."

[Aractus]

Are you asking what the purpose of the vat is and why governments are in the business of setting them at whatever rate?  The short answer is that it's supposed to help the wealthy by taxing consumption rather than income.  That's the business.  Are you asking why governing bodies like standardized rates?  To eliminate market distortion and reduce unfair competitive advantages based solely between various localities based on tax havens - which will then consume tax revenue from other places all the same.

We may as well ask why any government is in the business of setting any mandatory minimum anythings, unless there's some more specific objection in mind.  Taxes, wages, speeds, fines, sentences...the list goes on and on.

VAT is not a rich tax, it's a flat-tax. It's an unfair tax, it's not progressive.

It doesn't affect competition between countries because the country the goods or services are sold into are the ones that collect the tax, not the country from where it's sold from. To put that another way if I buy a bluray off Amazon.co.uk the GST (Australian version of the VAT) is 10% and that's what I pay, if someone in the UK buys the same product it's 20% VAT and so-on. Europe works the same way - you pay the rate imposed by the country you're selling into and they collect the VAT.

My point was that the EU should have no business whatsoever in setting minimum VAT rates.

[epronovost]

It doesn't affect competition between countries because the country the goods or services are sold into are the ones that collect the tax, not the country from where it's sold from.

It actually does, especially in the European context. A country with a lower VAT will attract customers who will visit only to make bulk purchases of consumers goods and thus alllow that State to gain both more in taxation but also in economic activity linked to this peculiar form of tourism. In Europe, thanks to small countries and ease of transport from one country to another, this form of tourism, emblematic of frontier cities in North America, would be even more common in Europe. Plus, since the wealthy have even better mobility and consume far more than the poor, this would actually be a way for the wealthy to save substantial amounts of money while buying luxury goods on which a high VAT brings lots of revenue like cars, jewelry, designer clothes, boats, etc. It seems to me like an important move to reduce downward competition around taxes for country within the same block especially since the principles of freedom of movement prevent the imposition of  maximum spendings without paying duties while crossing the frontier.

[Rhythmcs]

Are you asking what the purpose of the vat is and why governments are in the business of setting them at whatever rate?  The short answer is that it's supposed to help the wealthy by taxing consumption rather than income.  That's the business.  Are you asking why governing bodies like standardized rates?  To eliminate market distortion and reduce unfair competitive advantages based solely between various localities based on tax havens - which will then consume tax revenue from other places all the same.

We may as well ask why any government is in the business of setting any mandatory minimum anythings, unless there's some more specific objection in mind.  Taxes, wages, speeds, fines, sentences...the list goes on and on.

VAT is not a rich tax, it's a flat-tax. It's an unfair tax, it's not progressive.

See that bolded bit above, are we disagreeing?  I'm not sure what counts as progressive to you, but it probably wouldn't be seen as progressive here.  It could probably make progressive inroads as an environmental initiative - being a consumption tax and all.  I think it's a predictably shitty idea - any tax scheme whose advocates allege that one of the benefits is coddling the rich already has me doubled over laughing.

It doesn't affect competition between countries because the country the goods or services are sold into are the ones that collect the tax, not the country from where it's sold from. To put that another way if I buy a bluray off Amazon.co.uk the GST (Australian version of the VAT) is 10% and that's what I pay, if someone in the UK buys the same product it's 20% VAT and so-on. Europe works the same way - you pay the rate imposed by the country you're selling into and they collect the VAT.

My point was that the EU should have no business whatsoever in setting minimum VAT rates.

I won't be litigating reality with you here.  Variable rates and tax havens of any kind already affect competition both within and between countries.  I'll point you in the direction of delaware, ask you to find the actual operations incorporated there on a map of the world, and wave my hand in the general direction of the caribbean as I zip past flyover country on my way to a holiday shopping destination.  

The EU's business in setting minimum rates for this, as with any other similar thing - is the premise of a baseline level playing field.  I'd wonder why anyone would set it higher than the minimum if the answer wasn't already glaringly obvious.  To squeeze more tax revenue out of the poor, just like it's advocates claim.

[Deesse23]

Yep, Aractus seems to be completely oblivious to the geography of Europe. The whole of Europe would fit comfortably into maybe one single major state in Australia, but you are talking about more than a dozen nations in Europe.

I can travel 500km/300miles, as the crow flies from where i live in Germany (not even worth boarding a plane for that. ca. 5h driving with the car, faster within Germany), and end up in either one of those cities/countries:

France: Calais/dover (UK), Paris; Lyon
Border to Denmark
Czech Republic: Prague
Italy: Milano, Turin, Trento
Germany: Berlin
Polish border

I can cross the entirety of Switzerland, BeNeLux and western Austria (hence Italian cities) within 500km. Within 2-3 hours i could travel to at least 3-4 EU countries and buy stuff cheap (with much lower VAT), including cost of fuel and drive back home......in Aractus´ world, where France and BeNeLux had significant lower tax rates than Germany.

Back in the 90s, i drove REGULARLY 150km to France to get my car (see avatar) repaired, because in Germany one hour of mechanic work was 30fr while it was 30DM here. 1DM was 3fr at that time. After ONE hour of work it paid off the fuel to get there.

Edit: the area of the EU is just >50% of Australia, has ca. TWENTY times the population and consists of 27 different countries. But that does in no way change the fundamentals of my point. This rather supports it.

[Aractus]

VAT is not a rich tax, it's a flat-tax. It's an unfair tax, it's not progressive.

See that bolded bit above, are we disagreeing?  I'm not sure what counts as progressive to you, but it probably wouldn't be seen as progressive here.  It could probably make progressive inroads as an environmental initiative - being a consumption tax and all.  I think it's a predictably shitty idea - any tax scheme whose advocates allege that one of the benefits is coddling the rich already has me doubled over laughing.

Oh right I apologise, I must have misread it as “taxing the wealthy extra due their extra purchasing expenses”. We know that argument is wrong for several reasons: a wealthy person uses the same amount not more of ordinary services like having their mechanic fix their car, having a plumber fix their plumbing, etc. Same with food: you eat the same amount whether you're wealthy or whether you're poor. Similar with general retail - extra expendable income does not directly lead to extra discretionary spending in retail. So it really is a flat tax that undoes the progressiveness of a good progressive income tax scheme.

Yep, Aractus seems to be completely oblivious to the geography of Europe. The whole of Europe would fit comfortably into maybe one single major state in Australia, but you are talking about more than a dozen nations in Europe.

I can travel 500km/300miles, as the crow flies from where i live in Germany (not even worth boarding a plane for that. ca. 5h driving with the car, faster within Germany), and end up in either one of those cities/countries:

France: Calais/dover (UK), Paris; Lyon
Border to Denmark
Czech Republic: Prague
Italy: Milano, Turin, Trento
Germany: Berlin
Polish border

I can cross the entirety of Switzerland, BeNeLux and western Austria (hence Italian cities) within 500km. Within 2-3 hours i could travel to at least 3-4 EU countries and buy stuff cheap (with much lower VAT), including cost of fuel and drive back home......in Aractus´ world, where France and BeNeLux had significant lower tax rates than Germany.

Back in the 90s, i drove REGULARLY 150km to France to get my car (see avatar) repaired, because in Germany one hour of mechanic work was 30fr while it was 30DM here. 1DM was 3fr at that time. After ONE hour of work it paid off the fuel to get there.

Edit: the area of the EU is just >50% of Australia, has ca. TWENTY times the population and consists of 27 different countries. But that does in no way change the fundamentals of my point. This rather supports it.

You are just demonstrating my point. There will be more competition not less if the minimum VAT rates are not set by the EU.

[Deesse23]

See that bolded bit above, are we disagreeing?  I'm not sure what counts as progressive to you, but it probably wouldn't be seen as progressive here.  It could probably make progressive inroads as an environmental initiative - being a consumption tax and all.  I think it's a predictably shitty idea - any tax scheme whose advocates allege that one of the benefits is coddling the rich already has me doubled over laughing.

Oh right I apologise, I must have misread it as “taxing the wealthy extra due their extra purchasing expenses”. We know that argument is wrong for several reasons: a wealthy person uses the same amount not more of ordinary services like having their mechanic fix their car, having a plumber fix their plumbing, etc. Same with food: you eat the same amount whether you're wealthy or whether you're poor. Similar with general retail - extra expendable income does not directly lead to extra discretionary spending in retail. So it really is a flat tax that undoes the progressiveness of a good progressive income tax scheme.

Yep, Aractus seems to be completely oblivious to the geography of Europe. The whole of Europe would fit comfortably into maybe one single major state in Australia, but you are talking about more than a dozen nations in Europe.

I can travel 500km/300miles, as the crow flies from where i live in Germany (not even worth boarding a plane for that. ca. 5h driving with the car, faster within Germany), and end up in either one of those cities/countries:

France: Calais/dover (UK), Paris; Lyon
Border to Denmark
Czech Republic: Prague
Italy: Milano, Turin, Trento
Germany: Berlin
Polish border

I can cross the entirety of Switzerland, BeNeLux and western Austria (hence Italian cities) within 500km. Within 2-3 hours i could travel to at least 3-4 EU countries and buy stuff cheap (with much lower VAT), including cost of fuel and drive back home......in Aractus´ world, where France and BeNeLux had significant lower tax rates than Germany.

Back in the 90s, i drove REGULARLY 150km to France to get my car (see avatar) repaired, because in Germany one hour of mechanic work was 30fr while it was 30DM here. 1DM was 3fr at that time. After ONE hour of work it paid off the fuel to get there.

Edit: the area of the EU is just >50% of Australia, has ca. TWENTY times the population and consists of 27 different countries. But that does in no way change the fundamentals of my point. This rather supports it.

You are just demonstrating my point. There will be more competition not less if the minimum VAT rates are not set by the EU.

[Rhythmcs]

The "competition"..in that case, Aractus, is a competition between moneyed interests to see who can buy or set the most lucrative tax scam. Not a competition between producers or retailers or resources or logistics or quality or......

So, lets say my tv business is failing because it's not competitive with your tv business. Unfortunately for you and the consumer and whoever has invested in you, my interests are the interests of the people organizing tax havens. So the interests in question tank the tax rates for our benefit while simultaneously going hat in hand to common funds to make up for budget shortfalls - or, just as commonly, not doing anything else and saying fuck it - in the worst case (real world) scenario....outright pocketing those funds as well. Privatize the profits, socialize the loss.

Here in the us we call it picking winners and losers, and it's neither progressive nor free market. The manipulation of variable rates which - all by themselves- create destroy or insulate markets is a form of crony protectionism and a very lucrative racket for politicans to build their private side chops while in office.

[Rhythmcs]

You are just demonstrating my point. There will be more competition not less if the minimum VAT rates are not set by the EU.

I wanted to drill down on this seperately - because I think we're approaching your actual objection - and it's not whether the eu has any business setting minimum vat rates or any other standardization scheme - they do.  It's that you think they should be lower, or even non existent (likely on principle).  Individual nations can already set them higher if they want.

That position, plainly and clearly stated, wouldn't require you to assume absurd supporting positions and launch doomed arguments that are at odds with the facts on the ground in mere reality. It's also a position I happen to agree with. I would like to see less taxes, more in services, and if we need to add revenue you won't find me knocking on doors in the slums.

[Minimalist]

Hmmm.....


https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/priti-p...024-07-27/

Priti Patel enters race to lead UK opposition Conservative Party

So, are there no native "Englishmen" left to run the Tories?  Did Brexit scare them all away?

Enquiring minds want to know!!!


Sunak led Britain to its worst disaster since Operation Market-Garden.

[Minimalist]

"Act in haste - repent in leisure."

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/city-lo...024-10-16/

Brexit 'disaster' cost London 40,000 finance jobs, City chief says

LONDON, Oct 16 (Reuters) - Britain's departure from the European Union cost London's financial centre about 40,000 jobs, the Lord Mayor of the City of London told Reuters, a far deeper impact from Brexit than previous estimates.
Michael Mainelli said Dublin had gained most, attracting 10,000 positions, while cities such as Milan, Paris and Amsterdam had also benefited from jobs migrating from London after Britain voted to quit the EU trading bloc in 2016.

"Brexit was a disaster," said Mainelli, the ceremonial head of London's City financial centre, which stretches over a square mile including the Bank of England, international banks and insurers. "We had 525,000 workers in 2016. My estimate is that we lost just short of 40,000."

[pattylt]

But Min….they stopped the immigrants from coming in!

As an ignorant American, I’m sure there were lots of nuances to the good and bad of Brexit. From my end, it just seemed like many ordinary British didn’t care about much more than stopping those foreigners coming in. The wealthy likely understood what they had to gain or lose but everyone got to vote and there’s a ton more ordinary British than wealthy. From my point of view, the Scots understood more than the English. Why couldn’t the benefits vs. risks have been shown a bit more loudly? Or, did they and no one listened anyway?

[Minimalist]

Did they?


https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/re...om-the-uk/

Net migration was unusually high in 2023, at 685,000, driven by an increase in non-EU citizens coming to the UK. The majority of the increase in non-EU arrivals from 2019 to 2023 occurred through the work and study routes, with health and care as the main industry driving the growth in work migration.

EU citizens made up a majority of immigration and net migration in the run-up to the 2016 EU referendum. Since 2021, however, EU net migration has been negative, according to official estimates. In 2023, for example, it was -76,000.

Offhand, it looks as if they chased away those pesky French and Germans but are still getting plenty of, shall we say "others?"

And we both know that was not the intention!

But you know what they say.....'the best laid plans of mice and men usually work out about equal.'

[Mathilda]

As an ignorant American, I’m sure there were lots of nuances to the good and bad of Brexit.

Nope. No nuances at all unfortunately.

 From my end, it just seemed like many ordinary British didn’t care about much more than stopping those foreigners coming in.

Pretty much it really. But stupidly the kind of foreigners they wanted to stop coming in weren't even EU citizens which is why now it's all "Stop the boats".

Those in power basically just wanted a trapped population that could be exploited for economic gain and who could not complain about the country being asset stripped, which is what the Tories and Labour who serve the same paymasters, have been doing.

We're 5 to 10 years from becoming a fully fledged authoritarian state if we're not there already.

[Rhythmcs]

Look on the bright side, the us is 5-10 from failed state.

[Inkubus]

That's weeks, yes?

[Rhythmcs]

Hell, maybe dollars, donny needs defense money. I think brexit in the us and maga here in the states demonstrate that our respective leadership has no solution to the problems we face. We don't want to solve them. We're hoping that they just go away. Not the problems, concern over them, as one mans problem is another donors bottom line.