Macroeconomics, the economy, inflation etc. *likely to be very dull*
Comments
-
I have to hand it to Dan Neidle - I'd never thought that the intricacies of tax were terribly interesting. But then he writes threads like this which, even if I can't get every nuance, are very accessible and engaging.
0 -
He does it behind a Twitter wall though, so mere mortals can't read it.briantrumpet said:I have to hand it to Dan Neidle - I'd never thought that the intricacies of tax were terribly interesting. But then he writes threads like this which, even if I can't get every nuance, are very accessible and engaging.
0 -
Can you send me a threadunroll of that, please, Brian? I don't have twitter so can't read the thread.
Cheers0 -
There is something really objectionable about the Good Law Project.0
-
https://www.taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/10/06/deadcarry/TheBigBean said:
He does it behind a Twitter wall though, so mere mortals can't read it.briantrumpet said:I have to hand it to Dan Neidle - I'd never thought that the intricacies of tax were terribly interesting. But then he writes threads like this which, even if I can't get every nuance, are very accessible and engaging.
0 -
Thanks.kingstongraham said:
https://www.taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/10/06/deadcarry/TheBigBean said:
He does it behind a Twitter wall though, so mere mortals can't read it.briantrumpet said:I have to hand it to Dan Neidle - I'd never thought that the intricacies of tax were terribly interesting. But then he writes threads like this which, even if I can't get every nuance, are very accessible and engaging.
Reading that is time I won't get back. If you look a bit further, HMRC completely trash the Good Law Project's claim. There must be better things that they can do with their time.0 -
I will save you the pain.shirley_basso said:Can you send me a threadunroll of that, please, Brian? I don't have twitter so can't read the thread.
Cheers
Dan Neidle thinks that PE firms pay capital gains tax instead of income tax due to a 1987 statement on venture capital firms.
Good Law Project wrote a strongly worded letter to HMRC about a potential claim.
HMRC replied essentially mocking their ability to make a claim ("Mr Vince is a complete stranger to this area with no commercial interest in the outcome"), but they clarified their position on the subject.
The 1987 statement does not apply to PE firms, but it is highly unlikely that the typical structure of a PE firm would be subject to income tax. This is true in both the hypothetical structure that Niedle wrote about and also the structure used in reality.
The Good Law Project has celebrated this complete waste of time as a win because HMRC has confirmed the 1987 statement does not apply. They go on to talk about much extra tax can be raised, nurses hired etc. This is highly disingenuous given HMRC's response which means that no extra tax will be raised.
Dan Niedle has written some waffle ignoring the very strong rebuttals of his argument.
Brian likes Dan.
0 -
Cool.0
-
TheBigBean said:
I will save you the pain.shirley_basso said:Can you send me a threadunroll of that, please, Brian? I don't have twitter so can't read the thread.
Cheers
Dan Neidle thinks that PE firms pay capital gains tax instead of income tax due to a 1987 statement on venture capital firms.
Good Law Project wrote a strongly worded letter to HMRC about a potential claim.
HMRC replied essentially mocking their ability to make a claim ("Mr Vince is a complete stranger to this area with no commercial interest in the outcome"), but they clarified their position on the subject.
The 1987 statement does not apply to PE firms, but it is highly unlikely that the typical structure of a PE firm would be subject to income tax. This is true in both the hypothetical structure that Niedle wrote about and also the structure used in reality.
The Good Law Project has celebrated this complete waste of time as a win because HMRC has confirmed the 1987 statement does not apply. They go on to talk about much extra tax can be raised, nurses hired etc. This is highly disingenuous given HMRC's response which means that no extra tax will be raised.
Dan Niedle has written some waffle ignoring the very strong rebuttals of his argument.
Brian likes Dan.
OK, thanks, that's equally interesting. I've no idea if he's right or not, but I still enjoy his ferreting around obscure (and sometimes less obscure) parts of UK tax stuff.0 -
This is HMRC's response.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
I will save you the pain.shirley_basso said:Can you send me a threadunroll of that, please, Brian? I don't have twitter so can't read the thread.
Cheers
Dan Neidle thinks that PE firms pay capital gains tax instead of income tax due to a 1987 statement on venture capital firms.
Good Law Project wrote a strongly worded letter to HMRC about a potential claim.
HMRC replied essentially mocking their ability to make a claim ("Mr Vince is a complete stranger to this area with no commercial interest in the outcome"), but they clarified their position on the subject.
The 1987 statement does not apply to PE firms, but it is highly unlikely that the typical structure of a PE firm would be subject to income tax. This is true in both the hypothetical structure that Niedle wrote about and also the structure used in reality.
The Good Law Project has celebrated this complete waste of time as a win because HMRC has confirmed the 1987 statement does not apply. They go on to talk about much extra tax can be raised, nurses hired etc. This is highly disingenuous given HMRC's response which means that no extra tax will be raised.
Dan Niedle has written some waffle ignoring the very strong rebuttals of his argument.
Brian likes Dan.
OK, thanks, that's equally interesting. I've no idea if he's right or not, but I still enjoy his ferreting around obscure (and sometimes less obscure) parts of UK tax stuff.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xKzwfhEBMz4xZEja8Z8FfPGcZZYYIPCo/view
The problem with the Good Law Project should be clear. My problem with Dan Niedle comes from paragraphs like this.It’s now in everyone’s interest for the taxation of carried interest to be put on a proper footing. Government should have the courage to take a position (one way or another) and Parliament should legislate.13
HMRC have provided him with several pages of response on this complete with the relevant case law (see section 23 and onwards). If he disagrees, then he can make his case, but he is just ignoring it. There isn't going to be any additional clarity because none is needed, so no courage is required. Many areas of tax are like this (not clear cut), and he should know that. So I think he is just playing to the crowd, and therefore not really of interest to me.0 -
TheBigBean said:
This is HMRC's response.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
I will save you the pain.shirley_basso said:Can you send me a threadunroll of that, please, Brian? I don't have twitter so can't read the thread.
Cheers
Dan Neidle thinks that PE firms pay capital gains tax instead of income tax due to a 1987 statement on venture capital firms.
Good Law Project wrote a strongly worded letter to HMRC about a potential claim.
HMRC replied essentially mocking their ability to make a claim ("Mr Vince is a complete stranger to this area with no commercial interest in the outcome"), but they clarified their position on the subject.
The 1987 statement does not apply to PE firms, but it is highly unlikely that the typical structure of a PE firm would be subject to income tax. This is true in both the hypothetical structure that Niedle wrote about and also the structure used in reality.
The Good Law Project has celebrated this complete waste of time as a win because HMRC has confirmed the 1987 statement does not apply. They go on to talk about much extra tax can be raised, nurses hired etc. This is highly disingenuous given HMRC's response which means that no extra tax will be raised.
Dan Niedle has written some waffle ignoring the very strong rebuttals of his argument.
Brian likes Dan.
OK, thanks, that's equally interesting. I've no idea if he's right or not, but I still enjoy his ferreting around obscure (and sometimes less obscure) parts of UK tax stuff.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xKzwfhEBMz4xZEja8Z8FfPGcZZYYIPCo/view
The problem with the Good Law Project should be clear. My problem with Dan Niedle comes from paragraphs like this.It’s now in everyone’s interest for the taxation of carried interest to be put on a proper footing. Government should have the courage to take a position (one way or another) and Parliament should legislate.13
HMRC have provided him with several pages of response on this complete with the relevant case law (see section 23 and onwards). If he disagrees, then he can make his case, but he is just ignoring it. There isn't going to be any additional clarity because none is needed, so no courage is required. Many areas of tax are like this (not clear cut), and he should know that. So I think he is just playing to the crowd, and therefore not really of interest to me.
Fairy nuff.0 -
-
Nick Clegg shouldn't have signed the Liberals up to austerity?rick_chasey said:WHAT HAVE I BEEN SAYING
0 -
Also, you keep using X and you're agnostic towards greatness!!0
-
Do you fancy him or something? Clegg, I mean.focuszing723 said:
Nick Clegg shouldn't have signed the Liberals up to austerity?rick_chasey said:WHAT HAVE I BEEN SAYING
Only you seem a bit fixated.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Well the Tories keep getting blamed for austerity, I'm just reminding people the Liberals were in coalition at the time.rjsterry said:
Do you fancy him or something? Clegg, I mean.focuszing723 said:
Nick Clegg shouldn't have signed the Liberals up to austerity?rick_chasey said:WHAT HAVE I BEEN SAYING
Only you seem a bit fixated.
Happy?
I'm mean what do you want a friggin echo chamber?
Yeah, OK1 -
Yes Rick, you're spot on right.rick_chasey said:WHAT HAVE I BEEN SAYING
0 -
God!0
-
Think you are focusing too much on the who and not on the what.focuszing723 said:
Well the Tories keep getting blamed for austerity, I'm just reminding people the Liberals were in coalition at the time.rjsterry said:
Do you fancy him or something? Clegg, I mean.focuszing723 said:
Nick Clegg shouldn't have signed the Liberals up to austerity?rick_chasey said:WHAT HAVE I BEEN SAYING
Only you seem a bit fixated.
Happy?
I'm mean what do you want a friggin echo chamber?
Yeah, OK1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think you pick the facts you want to suit your agenda.rjsterry said:
Think you are focusing too much on the who and not on the what.focuszing723 said:
Well the Tories keep getting blamed for austerity, I'm just reminding people the Liberals were in coalition at the time.rjsterry said:
Do you fancy him or something? Clegg, I mean.focuszing723 said:
Nick Clegg shouldn't have signed the Liberals up to austerity?rick_chasey said:WHAT HAVE I BEEN SAYING
Only you seem a bit fixated.
Happy?
I'm mean what do you want a friggin echo chamber?
Yeah, OK1 -
And what 'agenda' is that?focuszing723 said:
I think you pick the facts you want to suit your agenda.rjsterry said:
Think you are focusing too much on the who and not on the what.focuszing723 said:
Well the Tories keep getting blamed for austerity, I'm just reminding people the Liberals were in coalition at the time.rjsterry said:
Do you fancy him or something? Clegg, I mean.focuszing723 said:
Nick Clegg shouldn't have signed the Liberals up to austerity?rick_chasey said:WHAT HAVE I BEEN SAYING
Only you seem a bit fixated.
Happy?
I'm mean what do you want a friggin echo chamber?
Yeah, OK1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Pot, eatin horses n all that.rjsterry said:
And what 'agenda' is that?focuszing723 said:
I think you pick the facts you want to suit your agenda.rjsterry said:
Think you are focusing too much on the who and not on the what.focuszing723 said:
Well the Tories keep getting blamed for austerity, I'm just reminding people the Liberals were in coalition at the time.rjsterry said:
Do you fancy him or something? Clegg, I mean.focuszing723 said:
Nick Clegg shouldn't have signed the Liberals up to austerity?rick_chasey said:WHAT HAVE I BEEN SAYING
Only you seem a bit fixated.
Happy?
I'm mean what do you want a friggin echo chamber?
Yeah, OK
0 -
Anyway, I got a like you didn't so I've won.
Let that be an end of it.
** Victorious **0 -
focuszing723 said:
Anyway, I got a like you didn't so I've won.
Let that be an end of it.
** Victorious **
I think that 'like' belongs in the irony thread.0 -
The McPherson quote is interesting as he refers to investment. That would have had no impact on the impact of "austerity" in the short term, as "austerity" was all about reducing current expenditure. Though investment 10+ years ago would doubtless have been useful if it could have got through the planning phase.rick_chasey said:WHAT HAVE I BEEN SAYING
And as a completely unjustified thought, I'm not sure austerity would be the issue it is today had we had a functioning government, as opposed to a party that is permanently campaigning like it's the Opposition, for the last 7-8 years.0 -
As I pointed out a few years ago we were borrowing not for investment, but just to keep our heads above water. It could never end well.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
But austerity cut a tonne of investment?wallace_and_gromit said:
The McPherson quote is interesting as he refers to investment. That would have had no impact on the impact of "austerity" in the short term, as "austerity" was all about reducing current expenditure. Though investment 10+ years ago would doubtless have been useful if it could have got through the planning phase.rick_chasey said:WHAT HAVE I BEEN SAYING
And as a completely unjustified thought, I'm not sure austerity would be the issue it is today had we had a functioning government, as opposed to a party that is permanently campaigning like it's the Opposition, for the last 7-8 years.
Need I remind, you, back in 2012:While direct government spending had been more positive for growth than the OBR anticipated in its forecasts made in 2010, Chote said the austerity package might have had more of a negative impact by affecting investment behavior.
“Businesses might be concerned about future demand for their products because of the way they are thinking people will be responding to the fiscal consolidation,” Chote explained.
https://www.reuters.com/article/cnews-us-britain-economy-growth-idCABRE89F0JG201210160 -
wallace_and_gromit said:
The McPherson quote is interesting as he refers to investment. That would have had no impact on the impact of "austerity" in the short term, as "austerity" was all about reducing current expenditure. Though investment 10+ years ago would doubtless have been useful if it could have got through the planning phase.rick_chasey said:WHAT HAVE I BEEN SAYING
And as a completely unjustified thought, I'm not sure austerity would be the issue it is today had we had a functioning government, as opposed to a party that is permanently campaigning like it's the Opposition, for the last 7-8 years.
I feel like the campaigning as if it's the opposition only really gained pace under Boris.
Although the years before were dominated by Brexit.0 -
Not sure that's quite right. For example the BSF programme was cut (with a certain amount of glee) by Gove. Notwithstanding that, from my own experience things had rebounded pretty well as early as 2012. It's after 2016 that the government has stopped doing and focused on talking.wallace_and_gromit said:
The McPherson quote is interesting as he refers to investment. That would have had no impact on the impact of "austerity" in the short term, as "austerity" was all about reducing current expenditure. Though investment 10+ years ago would doubtless have been useful if it could have got through the planning phase.rick_chasey said:WHAT HAVE I BEEN SAYING
And as a completely unjustified thought, I'm not sure austerity would be the issue it is today had we had a functioning government, as opposed to a party that is permanently campaigning like it's the Opposition, for the last 7-8 years.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
