Tell me this and tell me no more.

#21
It's not EU spending. It's their own money given back to them.
Until very recently, Ireland was a net recipient. Therefore, it might be more accurate to say that it was their own money, plus some from net donors minus the admin fees from Brussels.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#22
Fixed that for you.

Interestingly, Switzerland and Norway aren’t in the customs union. I’ve never seen a big queue of trucks coming out of Switzerland.

I did see a big queue of lorry’s in Norway going to Denmark, but they were queuing to get on the ferry.
Switzerland has to acceot a mahooosive amount of EU legislation, which they have no control over and have 7 significant bilateral treaties which makes them defacto members of the EEA,

Norway us also a member if the EEA, again thus involves having to accept huge amounts of EU legislation.

There are numerous customs points on the Swedish Norwegian border and hundreds of thousands of checks every year.

And yes there are massive queues

Lessons from Norway-Sweden border for post-Brexit Britain
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
#23
Maybe it would be better to get your own land border between the RoI/NI sorted out with a workable solution. As opposed to flexing the grey matter on a hypothetical and not too believable scenario.
Just a thought.
 

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer
#24
Dublin airport is new and quite massive and very ultra modern, it is really is to be admired, it's on a par with the regional Chinese airports. Was the airport a EU funded project?
 
#25
Plus the old customs regulations where designed for physical goods so services are ill served.
Not really. Services are basically the services of individuals to individuals for which there is payment in either cash or Kind. They have existed for a long time based on retail and are an IR function for tax as was VAT/PT. Now you can levy services as a commodity but since the costs of the service can be modified to absorb the levy there's little point. But I believe that Airport tax and areas of insurance have levy's on them already. Airport tax is an an anti pollution tax anyway.
 
#26
The whole concept of import duties is an anachronism, used to protect outdated and unproductive industries, which thrive in the EU due to such practices.
It might be now, but originally they were revenue raisers for the national treasuries based on the fact that some goods are Luxuries so if you can afford to buy them you can pay the tax. As such they were aspirational. They were little to do with level playing fields. But it's also why smuggling was such a dangerous game
 
#27
It might be now, but originally they were revenue raisers for the national treasuries based on the fact that some goods are Luxuries so if you can afford to buy them you can pay the tax. As such they were aspirational. They were little to do with level playing fields. But it's also why smuggling was such a dangerous game
Absolutely agree, most tariffs started as luxury taxes to provide a revue source. I disagree with the concept. If I want to go without breakfast and buy a Swiss watch, it’s my sacrifice, and this is the beauty of flat consumption taxes.

But as governments are addicted to taxation and have no concept of ROI, they have played with tariffs to create an income stream. Here in Australia we have a consumption tax, import duties AND a luxury car tax. These days it’s just to prop up inefficient governments, as the inefficient Australain car manufacturing sector died in the rear last year.

For the record I am a huge supporter of protectionism, but not of half arsed revenue grabbing complex tariffs. There are far better ways of keeping out imported goods than just taxing them - ask the Japanese how it’s done.

But my point is it is stupid to be struggling with trying to impose an outdated tariffs system and the UK should be rideculing the EU for even thinking of it.

Look at the hugely successful nations like Singapore and HK. What do they have in common? No tariffs and free trade.

The UK is missing out on an opportunity and is getting bogged down in 20th century tax arguments, being led by antiquated idiots in the EU who want to protect their inefficient industries. Time to move on and be innovative.
 

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer
#28
Absolutely agree, most tariffs started as luxury taxes to provide a revue source. I disagree with the concept. If I want to go without breakfast and buy a Swiss watch, it’s my sacrifice, and this is the beauty of flat consumption taxes.

But as governments are addicted to taxation and have no concept of ROI, they have played with tariffs to create an income stream. Here in Australia we have a consumption tax, import duties AND a luxury car tax. These days it’s just to prop up inefficient governments, as the inefficient Australain car manufacturing sector died in the rear last year.

For the record I am a huge supporter of protectionism, but not of half arsed revenue grabbing complex tariffs. There are far better ways of keeping out imported goods than just taxing them - ask the Japanese how it’s done.

But my point is it is stupid to be struggling with trying to impose an outdated tariffs system and the UK should be rideculing the EU for even thinking of it.

Look at the hugely successful nations like Singapore and HK. What do they have in common? No tariffs and free trade.

The UK is missing out on an opportunity and is getting bogged down in 20th century tax arguments, being led by antiquated idiots in the EU who want to protect their inefficient industries. Time to move on and be innovative.
I quote just one instance that once affected me. I used to bring in terracotta floor tiles from China, they were the hand-made variety and excellent. I had been selling these tiles for some years. My import agents in Southampton rang me and informed that there was to be an immediate 70% import tax on import consignments of these tiles. This was to protect Spanish and Italian makers, so they could maintainer their jobs and high prices. Some months later I was in Tuscany and saw the Very same Chinese hand-made tiles still being used on new jobs.
One of our main failings of being in the EU is that we played by the rules.
The tiles in question were being made in China by an ex-pat Frenchman. He told me that it is best that I call them 'Roof Tiles' to get them through UK customs. I put this to my UK agent and he refused to do it, saying he would lose his good name and credibility with customs, and that I would lose the consignment due to confiscation.
 
Last edited:
#29
I quote just one instance that once affected me. I used to bring in terracotta floor tiles from China, they were the hand-made variety and excellent. I had been selling these tiles for some years. My import agents in Southampton rang me and informed that there was to be an immediate 70% import tax on import consignments. This was to protect Spanish and Italian makers of these tiles, and so they could maintainer their high prices. Some months later I was in Tuscany and saw the Very same Chinese hand-made tiles still being used on new jobs.
One of our main failings of being in the EU is that we played by the rules.
We also tend to forget the EU stupidity over tariffs and retail price maintenance. In 2003, it was reported that the EU warehoused 194,000 tonnes of powdered milk and 223,000 tonnes of butter. There was also a huge stock of unsold wine. All due to protecting inefficient industries - mainly French peasant farmers.

I remember in the early 80s a friend being paid NOT to produce milk, and to leave his land fallow. Another had to buy milk rights on airfield grass areas, to justify his level of milk production.

Edit: Farmer earns pounds 19,000 a year for growing nothing: For five years,
Do farmers make more from subsidies than agriculture?


The tariffs are just another manifestation of such economic stupidity.

Bumholes advice to the UK:

Declare the UK tariff free and leave open the border to Ireland (and therefore into the EU). It then becomes the EU problem to control the massive influx of goods going over that border and flooding into the EU.

The EU and Ireland then have to pay for it, police it, and put up with the negative publicity from the customs actions. The UK shrugs its shoulders and says “we moved into 21c economics, you need to move with us”
 
Last edited:
#30
Absolutely agree, most tariffs started as luxury taxes to provide a revue source. I disagree with the concept. If I want to go without breakfast and buy a Swiss watch, it’s my sacrifice, and this is the beauty of flat consumption taxes.

But as governments are addicted to taxation and have no concept of ROI, they have played with tariffs to create an income stream. Here in Australia we have a consumption tax, import duties AND a luxury car tax. These days it’s just to prop up inefficient governments, as the inefficient Australain car manufacturing sector died in the rear last year.

For the record I am a huge supporter of protectionism, but not of half arsed revenue grabbing complex tariffs. There are far better ways of keeping out imported goods than just taxing them - ask the Japanese how it’s done.

But my point is it is stupid to be struggling with trying to impose an outdated tariffs system and the UK should be rideculing the EU for even thinking of it.

Look at the hugely successful nations like Singapore and HK. What do they have in common? No tariffs and free trade.

The UK is missing out on an opportunity and is getting bogged down in 20th century tax arguments, being led by antiquated idiots in the EU who want to protect their inefficient industries. Time to move on and be innovative.
I suspect this may be what the EU is bricking itself over. Like it or not, the EU economy isn’t growing by much. They’ve done the standard methods for boosting GDP. They’ve acquired more land mass and grown the population by expanding in size. They’ve grown the population further by letting in an awful lot of refugees but this can only take economic growth so far.

The UK has done similar, it’s grown the economy by growing the population,so although the population colony has grown, more money has to be spread across more people which explains why GDP per capita hasn’t gone up significantly.

You’re spot on about HK and Singapore. That’s why I think the future post brexit has a huge potential.

The UKs led the way in commerce before. (Well we haven’t, we’ve been quite good at taking somebody else’s idea and running with it.)
 
#31
Absolutely agree, most tariffs started as luxury taxes to provide a revue source. I disagree with the concept. If I want to go without breakfast and buy a Swiss watch, it’s my sacrifice, and this is the beauty of flat consumption taxes.

But as governments are addicted to taxation and have no concept of ROI, they have played with tariffs to create an income stream. Here in Australia we have a consumption tax, import duties AND a luxury car tax. These days it’s just to prop up inefficient governments, as the inefficient Australain car manufacturing sector died in the rear last year.

For the record I am a huge supporter of protectionism, but not of half arsed revenue grabbing complex tariffs. There are far better ways of keeping out imported goods than just taxing them - ask the Japanese how it’s done.

But my point is it is stupid to be struggling with trying to impose an outdated tariffs system and the UK should be rideculing the EU for even thinking of it.

Look at the hugely successful nations like Singapore and HK. What do they have in common? No tariffs and free trade.

The UK is missing out on an opportunity and is getting bogged down in 20th century tax arguments, being led by antiquated idiots in the EU who want to protect their inefficient industries. Time to move on and be innovative.
Governments will remain addicted to taxation. Countries without that concept are an oxymoron. Protectionism is only really justified in the strategic interest of the country, where pure opportunism disadvantages them. The other balance is consumer interest in the goods produced. What we are addicted to in taxing the income of the least well off on the basis that those on benefits can't be seen to have an advantage. In practice the benefits ceiling should be the income tax threshold
 
#32
I quote just one instance that once affected me. I used to bring in terracotta floor tiles from China, they were the hand-made variety and excellent. I had been selling these tiles for some years. My import agents in Southampton rang me and informed that there was to be an immediate 70% import tax on import consignments of these tiles. This was to protect Spanish and Italian makers, so they could maintainer their jobs and high prices. Some months later I was in Tuscany and saw the Very same Chinese hand-made tiles still being used on new jobs.
One of our main failings of being in the EU is that we played by the rules.
The tiles in question were being made in China by an ex-pat Frenchman. He told me that it is best that I call them 'Roof Tiles' to get them through UK customs. I put this to my UK agent and he refused to do it, saying he would lose his good name and credibility with customs, and that I would lose the consignment due to confiscation.
I quite agree with the agent in this case, misdescription is an offence and is prosecutable . Plus to be fair the Chinese can make them far more cheaply than in the EU and it doesn't end there. But then why couldn't they be made here? That's the real issue. Course had they been made in HK, they MAY have qualified for GSP
 
#33
Governments will remain addicted to taxation. Countries without that concept are an oxymoron. Protectionism is only really justified in the strategic interest of the country, where pure opportunism disadvantages them. The other balance is consumer interest in the goods produced. What we are addicted to in taxing the income of the least well off on the basis that those on benefits can't be seen to have an advantage. In practice the benefits ceiling should be the income tax threshold
True, but globalisation is hammering that taxation income into the ground. Company profits, once a healthy source of tax income, are increasingly being offshored. New cash driven disruptive employment, everything from Uber driving to eBay trading, is proving a nightmare for traditional taxation strategies. Income tax levels have to be moderated, as they drive cost of goods, and in a global production world they are going to have to fall or see employment move overseas.

The tax well is rapidly running dry, just about only consumption taxation remains.

The alternative, which we are already seeing, is to cut back on services. If you can’t collect the tax you can’t spend it, so cutbacks in welfare, defence etc.

It’s time to change the sovereign economy model.
 
#34
True, but globalisation is hammering that taxation income into the ground. Company profits, once a healthy source of tax income, are increasingly being offshored. New cash driven disruptive employment, everything from Uber driving to eBay trading, is proving a nightmare for traditional taxation strategies. Income tax levels have to be moderated, as they drive cost of goods, and in a global production world they are going to have to fall or see employment move overseas.

The tax well is rapidly running dry, just about only consumption taxation remains.

The alternative, which we are already seeing, is to cut back on services. If you can’t collect the tax you can’t spend it, so cutbacks in welfare, defence etc.

It’s time to change the sovereign economy model.
Ah well there's the rub. See company profits are primarily about reducing costs and that means reduction in the amount of tax profits. But we can't really maintain the current income tax model for much longer. If you want people to have disposable income you have to let them keep their money.
 
#35
Ah well there's the rub. See company profits are primarily about reducing costs and that means reduction in the amount of tax profits. But we can't really maintain the current income tax model for much longer. If you want people to have disposable income you have to let them keep their money.
Couldn’t agree more. Governments across the world should have seen this coming years ago, and seem to have done nothing. And I agree - the best way to revitalise an economy is to increase disposable income.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#36
True, but globalisation is hammering that taxation income into the ground. Company profits, once a healthy source of tax income, are increasingly being offshored. New cash driven disruptive employment, everything from Uber driving to eBay trading, is proving a nightmare for traditional taxation strategies. Income tax levels have to be moderated, as they drive cost of goods, and in a global production world they are going to have to fall or see employment move overseas.

The tax well is rapidly running dry, just about only consumption taxation remains.

The alternative, which we are already seeing, is to cut back on services. If you can’t collect the tax you can’t spend it, so cutbacks in welfare, defence etc.

It’s time to change the sovereign economy model.
Now I am no tax expert, my role has just been to fork out as much as the government want from my income. However, what seems blindingly apparent is we need to find a way for companies that operate in this country pay tax in this country. This business of companies franchising their own services and charging back to head office in a tax haven country at vastly inflated costs is to my mind avoidance at best, evasion at least and outright tax fraud. They do business here they pay tax here and send the balance back to their HQ, if they are overcharging on these paybacks to avoid tax then HMRC should set up a tribunal to check that pricing is fair. To avoid this lasting for years a sensible rate should be set at the begining, payment started and companies justify their costs to the tribunal. Costs of tribunal to be carried by the company! Some companies would leave the UK but as they are not paying tax here then what will we miss? There will be other companies waiting to fill any void in the marketplace.

Never happen but it would be nice to see!
 
#37
Now I am no tax expert, my role has just been to fork out as much as the government want from my income. However, what seems blindingly apparent is we need to find a way for companies that operate in this country pay tax in this country. This business of companies franchising their own services and charging back to head office in a tax haven country at vastly inflated costs is to my mind avoidance at best, evasion at least and outright tax fraud. They do business here they pay tax here and send the balance back to their HQ, if they are overcharging on these paybacks to avoid tax then HMRC should set up a tribunal to check that pricing is fair. To avoid this lasting for years a sensible rate should be set at the begining, payment started and companies justify their costs to the tribunal. Costs of tribunal to be carried by the company! Some companies would leave the UK but as they are not paying tax here then what will we miss? There will be other companies waiting to fill any void in the marketplace.

Never happen but it would be nice to see!
Exactly and the ever revolving doors between the treasury and the Tax experts underpinned by EU policy sees to that and was exactly Junckers Ploy with the grey/i illegal economy. He really so full of paradoxical policies he should see a doctor.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#38
Exactly and the ever revolving doors between the treasury and the Tax experts underpinned by EU policy sees to that and was exactly Junckers Ploy with the grey/i illegal economy. He really so full of paradoxical policies he should see a doctor.
Well Juncker is certainly full of something..........
 

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer
#39
Tescos has its HQ in Dublin, that would be for low Corporation tax reasons, not many companies can be more British than Tescos, a business that started on the streets of London in the 1930s.
In a document published by District councils you can check if you are paying reasonable business rates compared with others of a similar business size. All local businesses and shops are shown on these lists. Tescos is not on there? If someone can prove me wrong, then I would be interested to know.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top