The years of discontent, 2022/23

[Left Back]

4 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Aye, me neither.

That's the way it works, right? We get to decide ourselves?  

Naw.  The way it works is you ranting on about something no-one in the world has come up with a solution for = howling at the moon.

Everyone else not wasting their effort repeating the same old shit that no-one has a solution for = not howling at the moon.

[BFTD]

1 minute ago, Left Back said:

Naw.  The way it works is you ranting on about something no-one in the world has come up with a solution for = howling at the moon.

Everyone else not wasting their effort repeating the same old shit that no-one has a solution for = not howling at the moon.

I'm seeing a lot of wasted effort so far, but do carry on.

I'll see you next time you fancy letting everyone know there's nothing can be done on a subject, while everyone else discusses what they think should happen. Like I said, maybe it'll catch on.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Not all of them are going to be helped and we could easily be looking at historic levels of personal bankruptcy.

I actually thought this would happen through COVID, indeed the AIB reduced bankruptcy fees (even removed fees altogether for certain types of sequestration), massively raised the thresholds at which you could be sequestrated by creditors and relaxed evidence requirements, but certainly in my experience they have been far fewer and far between than pre-covid. I think I've only put through 4 in the last 2 years. Previously I'd be doing that many in a quarter.

Much of that may be down to the fact that higher numbers of folk have fallen into debt that without the reduced income through the pandemic probably would have been OK, so you got homeowners, folk with non-shitbox cars etc for debt advice and as soon as you have the "assets" discussion, the options changed considerably. 80% of the advice generally given out now is to basically try to keep on top of priority debts and rubber shite like payday loans, catalogue debts etc. 99 times out of 100 they're going to do absolutely nothing beyond send a series of empty threats by letter. 

I think from this time next year, we'll be seeing a massive increase in bankruptcies. 

[Left Back]

1 minute ago, BFTD said:

I'm seeing a lot of wasted effort so far, but do carry on.

I'll see you next time you fancy letting everyone know there's nothing can be done on a subject, while everyone else discusses what they think should happen. Like I said, maybe it'll catch on.

Still waiting to hear what you think the solution is.  You ducked that question a while ago.  If anyone else has offered a solution that I’ve missed feel free to point it out to me.

Unlike you I haven’t offered soundbite solutions like “um tax the rich likes.  c***s have goat loads of wedge an can afford it likes”.

That’s been your contribution to the discussion.

Other people have been making sensible points.  Some agreeing, some disagreeing, but all far more worthwhile than whatever gibberish you’re trying to spout.

[Left Back]

12 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

I actually thought this would happen through COVID, indeed the AIB reduced bankruptcy fees (even removed fees altogether for certain types of sequestration), massively raised the thresholds at which you could be sequestrated by creditors and relaxed evidence requirements, but certainly in my experience they have been far fewer and far between than pre-covid. I think I've only put through 4 in the last 2 years. Previously I'd be doing that many in a quarter.

Much of that may be down to the fact that higher numbers of folk have fallen into debt that without the reduced income through the pandemic probably would have been OK, so you got homeowners, folk with non-shitbox cars etc for debt advice and as soon as you have the "assets" discussion, the options changed considerably. 80% of the advice generally given out now is to basically try to keep on top of priority debts and rubber shite like payday loans, catalogue debts etc. 99 times out of 100 they're going to do absolutely nothing beyond send a series of empty threats by letter. 

I think from this time next year, we'll be seeing a massive increase in bankruptcies. 

Genuine question.  What are priority debts?

[BFTD]

3 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Still waiting to hear what you think the solution is.  You ducked that question a while ago.  If anyone else has offered a solution that I’ve missed feel free to point it out to me.

Unlike you I haven’t offered soundbite solutions like “um tax the rich likes.  c***s have goat loads of wedge an can afford it likes”.

That’s been your contribution to the discussion.

Other people have been making sensible points.  Some agreeing, some disagreeing, but all far more worthwhile than whatever gibberish you’re trying to spout.

Here's my answer again:

1 hour ago, BFTD said:

If you're after detailed strategy to ensure the incorruptibility of our politicians on a global scale, and ensure that the wealthy are forced to pay for society's needs, you're in the wrong place. I'm pretty sure advocating meek acceptance isn't going to be part of it, however.

My entire contribution was a single glib comment about how it's weird to see ordinary folk taking a position that there's nothing to do be done about the hoarding of wealth, so just leave them to it, which you've taken very personally despite it not even being aimed at you. I'm sorry it's upset you for some reason but, again, if you're going to demand specific economic strategy for wealth redistribution on the politics corral of a football forum then I'm afraid you're going to remain disappointed. And everyone else is going to be very, very bored, so make a joke about penises or something if you're going to continue this interrogation.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

4 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Genuine question.  What are priority debts?

Rent, Council Tax, Gas/Electric, Court Fines.

Basically those which have severe consequences for non-payment, eg Eviction,  Jail etc. 

[Left Back]

3 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Here's my answer again:

My entire contribution was a single glib comment about how it's weird to see ordinary folk taking a position that there's nothing to do be done about the hoarding of wealth, so just leave them to it

Bollocks.  You waded into a discussion with a half-arsed ill thought out view and you got called on it.  You then carried on with it.

No-one has said that.  I don’t recall reading a single persons view that supports that.  I have read views where people can’t see a way it can be done.  Totally different thing.

 

[Left Back]

11 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

Rent, Council Tax, Gas/Electric, Court Fines.

Basically those which have severe consequences for non-payment, eg Eviction,  Jail etc. 

cheers.  I asked because you used the word “now” so I was wondering if something had changed in the last 15 years or so.  That was the same advice given to a relative of mine years back when they were in a financial mess.  Rubber every c**t except the law, utilities and the council.  Don’t even speak to them.  Set up a trust deed and they can go swivel.  The trust deed people will deal with their pish.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

1 minute ago, Left Back said:

cheers.  I asked because you used the word “now” so I was wondering if something had changed in the last 15 years or so.  That was the same advice given to a relative of mine years back when they were in a financial mess.  Rubber every c**t except the law, utilities and the council.  Don’t even speak to them.  Set up a trust deed and they can go swivel.  The trust deed people will deal with their pish.

I wouldn't even recommend a Trust Deed these days. Too many cowboy companies. As long as you've no property or assets to worry about most folk would be as well just going through a MAP bankruptcy if they meet the criteria. Discharged after 6 months, no monthly contribution and no Trustee trousering 99.8% of the total contributions. 

[coprolite]

7 hours ago, ICTChris said:

I don't want to intrude into this argument/debate but there are actually not that many people in Scotland who earn 3-10 times £35k a year.

Around 10% of Scottish adults pay the higher rate of tax and less than 1% pay the top rate of tax.  You pay the higher rate if your wages are over £43,663 and you pay the top rate if your wage is over £150,000.  I'm sure I saw somewhere that there are about 20,000 people in Scotland who pay the top rate.  That's a very small number of people, you can't just say "the people earning £200,000 a year should pay!" because there aren't enough of them.  I'd imagine a significant number of this group will be 'mobile' and could relocate to England, at least on paper, if they were getting taxed a lot more.

The truth is if you want to increase the tax take and spend more, a significant part burden of it is going to have to fall on people who earn just above the average.  Obviously there are many discussions about whether increasing taxes on higher earners has that affect, what unintended consequences it would have, if there are other taxes (wealth tax, land tax etc) that could raise more funds.

We need to tax unearned income at the same rate as employment income and drop the National Insurance charade. 

We need to increase the rate of capital gains tax to the same as income tax levels. 

The main "loophole", as someone called it, used by the rich is to not take dividends and sell the company to pay capital gains tax at 20%. This doesn't show up in any widely published income or earnings stats that i know of. 

Scotland isn't any poorer than the UK as a whole and has plenty of rich people, valuable companies and natural resources that can pay for public services. 

 

[Left Back]

3 minutes ago, coprolite said:

We need to tax unearned income at the same rate as employment income and drop the National Insurance charade. 

We need to increase the rate of capital gains tax to the same as income tax levels. 

The main "loophole", as someone called it, used by the rich is to not take dividends and sell the company to pay capital gains tax at 20%. This doesn't show up in any widely published income or earnings stats that i know of. 

Scotland isn't any poorer than the UK as a whole and has plenty of rich people, valuable companies and natural resources that can pay for public services. 

 

Smart accountants don’t let you pay CGT at 20%.  They claim EMI relief so you only pay 10% if you pay UK tax.

[Left Back]

18 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

I wouldn't even recommend a Trust Deed these days. Too many cowboy companies. As long as you've no property or assets to worry about most folk would be as well just going through a MAP bankruptcy if they meet the criteria. Discharged after 6 months, no monthly contribution and no Trustee trousering 99.8% of the total contributions. 

What is a MAP bankruptcy?  Surely there must be some consequences beyond 6 months?  Sounds too easy.

[coprolite]

9 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Smart accountants don’t let you pay CGT at 20%.  They claim EMI relief so you only pay 10% if you pay UK tax.

That's good for management but doesn't really help the owners. They've £2m on the new entrepreneurs relief at 10% then it's 20%.

[Left Back]

58 minutes ago, coprolite said:

That's good for management but doesn't really help the owners. They've £2m on the new entrepreneurs relief at 10% then it's 20%.

I’m not an accountant.  I can only speak from my own experience.  As a shareholder in companies that have been sold I’ve paid 10% CGT because EMI relief has been claimed.  Haven’t made £2m off any of them yet.  One day maybe.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

7 hours ago, Left Back said:

What is a MAP bankruptcy?  Surely there must be some consequences beyond 6 months?  Sounds too easy.

Minimal Asset Process - It's basically for those who have zero disposable income or are on benefits, with total debts under 25K. As with other forms of sequestration it stays on your credit file for 6 years, so you won't be able to open so much as a bank account. There are no other common "consequences" as such, unless you come into money, inheritance etc, in which case you are supposed to inform the Trustee who will distribute amongst the creditors. Most are quite straightforward, however some jobs and tenancy agreements will not allow one. 

Anyone else goes into a Full Administration Bankruptcy - ie any surplus income basically becomes your monthly payment to the Trustee for up to 4 years (reviewed regularly). 

Folk with property with equity, assets or cars worth more than £3K tend to avoid them as these vest in the trustee and can be sold by the trustee to pay creditors. They'll generally make arrangements or look into a DAS

[101]

9 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Which loopholes specifically?

Make Capital gains tax the same as the income tax thresholds.

Abolish tax relief on Venture capital investments.

Tax relief on film investments

Business inheritance tax relief

That would do for starters I'm sure

How effective would they be?

Currently perfectly legal so I'm sure that updating the law would work fine, I'm sure there are other ways tax specialists can limit the liability on individuals the Treasury should make every effort to close these. It makes it fair for PAYE people.

Why would £70k be sensible?

As an interim gap.

Why not £35k or £40k?

There is already an income tax band that begins at £43k

How many would be affected by the £70k bracket?

A reasonable amount

What would the rate be?

44%

How much would all of that bring in for Scotland?

More than it does now

Hth

[Jacksgranda]

8 hours ago, Day of the Lords said:

I wouldn't even recommend a Trust Deed these days. Too many cowboy companies. As long as you've no property or assets to worry about most folk would be as well just going through a MAP bankruptcy if they meet the criteria. Discharged after 6 months, no monthly contribution and no Trustee trousering 99.8% of the total contributions. 

I sometimes think I'd have been better going bankrupt in 2010 instead of entering an IVA. Then came the construction crash and my income reduced, finally closed in 2017.

Apparently there is still a mis-sold PPI case kicking about, although I doubt there's much chance of that being resolved to my satisfaction, the last communication about it was 3 years ago.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

1 hour ago, Jacksgranda said:

I sometimes think I'd have been better going bankrupt in 2010 instead of entering an IVA. Then came the construction crash and my income reduced, finally closed in 2017.

Apparently there is still a mis-sold PPI case kicking about, although I doubt there's much chance of that being resolved to my satisfaction, the last communication about it was 3 years ago.

We don't have IVAs in Scotland - they are effectively the same as Trust Deeds. I've never ever recommended or referred anyone for a Trust Deed because there are simply better debt options available. Also quite a free Trust Deed companies are absolute sharks and to be totally avoided. 

[Gordon EF]

3 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

 

The first immediate problem would be how do you stop companies and people affected by this leaving the country.

 

There's plenty evidence that the risk of high tax payers becoming tax-dodging nomads is hugely over-stated. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-29/when-do-taxes-cause-millionaires-to-move