You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Well I believe we need something way more radical than the above. So 1p income tax will do very little.
First few post echo my constant Tory confusion.
So 1p income tax will do very little.
I know. So how is the free Broadband going to be paid for? And the free prescriptions. And the reduction in rail fares?
Jeremy's imaginary piggy bank?
I think Labour might just pull this off. I'm starting to think Tory fatigue is kicking in; too much unexpected bad stuff going on. This won't keep away die hard hammer-heads but there are a lot of people out there yearning for change who might just be tipped towards Labour.
I'm not calling a majority but I reckon they might scrape it one way or another. Revise in one week.
(Un)Happy to be called out on Friday 13th if I'm wrong!
I've decided Labour are going to win, you heard it here first.
If I'm wrong it'll be the first time I've got an election or referendum result wrong in the last 6yrs give or take so the weight of history is on my side - if that's not just a little bit grandiose!
Jeremy’s imaginary piggy bank?
There's a document costing everything, why don't you give that a read.
The argument I’ve heard is that they’ve worked hard to get what they have so why should they support a party who will give to others who haven’t worked as hard.
I hear this a lot. The trouble with this argument is that people who earn a lot think that they deserve it more than those who earn less but still work their asses off. It's that peddled falsehood that money equates to success. There's no acknowledgement that a lot of wealthy people have had the background/luck/connections/opportunities that others less well-off may not have had. I doubt the average entitled high earner who was highly educated and had much better opportunities in life, has ever worked as hard as a single mother who works two jobs just to make ends meet.
Stuart Lee - The Money Is Mine sums it up quite nicely.
I do OK for myself and family for example, and I have worked hard to get where I am, but I fully acknowledge I have been extremely fortunate in my upbringing and background too. I will be voting for a Labour government as I am saddened by the perpetuating greed, corruption, selfishness, division and poverty in this country. I think we need a change, and although I have my doubts about how Corbyn will pay for a lot of his policies, I agree with them in principle and genuinely believe he is a rare politician that actually cares more about people than money. The big problem is our blatantly biased media - say something often enough and people start to believe it!
The point is did anyone know it was going to end so badly?
pretty much anyone who has read any history, or anyone who has seen "Charlie Wilson's War"
Nature abhors a vacuum. Interventionist policies always leave a vacuum.
The trouble with this argument is that people who earn a lot think that they deserve it more than those who earn less but still work their asses off.
It’s those people who don’t earn much but work hard that I refer to as working class Tories.
There’s a degree of politics of jealousy in that they have worked hard for not much so why should someone else get more?
It’s those people who don’t earn much but work hard that I refer to as working class Tories.
There’s a degree of politics of jealousy in that they have worked hard for not much so why should someone else get more?
Yes, I think that they have usually been convinced that there are a mass of scroungers out there who have no intention of ever working, and yet are still getting paid loads in benefits. They are also convinced that Labour are going to give them even more, but the reality is somewhat different as afar as I'm aware.
The argument I’ve heard is that they’ve worked hard to get what they have so why should they support a party who will give to others who haven’t worked as hard.
John Harris in the Guardian and others have been doing a reasonable job of trying to get the bottom of the phenomenon.
Doesn't explain it all, like why people most hurt by austerity and London centric governance would want to vote for the party most closely associated with it.
There’s a document costing everything, why don’t you give that a read.
Because someone's wife thinks he looks like he's a homeless commie.
It must be true. A Labour supporter on here has told me so every five minutes for the past 3 years....
Well I’ve just done my democratic duty. Postal vote posted.
The Lib Dem and Green Party candidates both stood down to make it a straight Tory/Labour scrap with the waters muddied with Farage’s rabble in this key marginal seat. But there names were still on the ballot sheet?
Anyway... I’m joining Ivan in making predictions. I shoved a tenner on a hung parliament last time while May was well clear in the polls, at 5/1
The other week I shoved a tenner on a hung parliament with labour the largest party, at 6/1. My reasoning is that I just can’t see Boris and co convincing enough labour voters to commit the mortal sin/class treachery of voting Tory in the ‘labour heartlands’ seats they’re targeting in the north.
They’re absolutely loathed in these places. For a whole world of very valid reasons. People may tell pollsters they’ll do it, but when it actually comes down to putting that cross in the box marked Conservative Party....?
Maybe that’s wishful thinking, but we’ll see
There’s a document costing everything, why don’t you give that a read.
Fantastic, please post a quote from the section of the document that explains the 58bn over 5 years for WASPI women.
(58bn is more than total of Labour's entire manifesto commitments in the last election which was pretty pork-barrel-y at a bit over 40bn IIRC.)
Binners, you've never stopped going on about how unelectable Corbyn is, now you put money on him winning. Either your political or gambling insight is rubbish! Remind me not to take racing tips from you 🙂
Fantastic, please post a quote from the section of the document that explains the 58bn over 5 years for WASPI women.
Nope, not my manifesto. I was telling the poster to read the document.
I was right last time Molls. I think Grandad is absolutely hopeless (I may have mentioned it) but I’ve still just voted labour. What else am I going to do?
I reckon that when it comes down to it, a lot of people are going to weigh up what the reality of 5 years of Boris Johnson would actually look like, hold their noses and do the same
So 1p income tax will do very little.
Indeed, so you can see how insane the profligate spending pledges from the other parties are.
There’s a document costing everything, why don’t you give that a read.
Fantastic, please post a quote from the section of the document that explains the 58bn over 5 years for WASPI women.
Fantastic, please post a quote from the section of the document that explains the 58bn over 5 years for WASPI women.
Nope
😀
You poor naive child. A politician told you there was a document costing everything and you accepted that without checking for yourself.
Here it is:
No mention of the 58bn.
I was right last time Molls. I think Grandad is absolutely hopeless (I may have mentioned it) but I’ve still just voted labour. What else am I going to do?
You did the right thing Dusty.
You poor naive child. A politician told you there was a document costing everything and you accepted that without checking for yourself.
I knew it wasn't in the document because I saw Andrew Neil take Corbyn apart over it. Corbyn admitted that it might need to be borrowed. Whoever it was that posted was asking about much more than that, which is why I directed him at the costing document.
I'm a realist about the contents of manifestos and how they are costed. Neither party will do everything in their manifesto and neither will balance the books particularly well. But despite that, I still trust Corbyn to do what I think is right far more than I do Johnson. In fact, I trust Johnson to do nothing but lie through his teeth, tell people what they want to hear and then not bother to do anything. Because all he wants to do is make money and be important. He does not give a shit about the poor, or you, or me. Corbyn on the other hand does care. That's the bottom line. Corbyn will try to fix things.
Interesting little tidbit.
It is. Basically anything could happen.
I know. So how is the free Broadband going to be paid for? And the free prescriptions. And the reduction in rail fares?
Tax doesn't pay for things. It controls inflation.
Secret: a sovereign country like ours that is the single issuer of its own currency can't run out of money
Just like q/e the government can issue funds - as long as there are the resources to match the spending. Governments don't campaign on this as it's still considered controversial.
Short answer.
Long answer read Stephanie Kelton - Bernie Sanders' senior economic advisor.
www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-economist-who-believes-the-government-should-just-print-more-money
It's apolitical so don't start thinking it's a leftist thing, and is effectively just a description of how the money supply works.
Now some know the value of this but they're hardly going to sell it to the electorate as idiots go on about Zimbabwe (broken economies.) hyperinflation etc.
So yeah, keep it in the back of your mind. (The Republicans know the value of this and did it for the military.)
I'm working class and will be voting Tory.
Not that my vote will change anything, as the tories win by 15000 each time here.
Why?
Tony Blair, Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbot.
I voted Labour once before, thinking it was going to be a real change. Then Blair gave in to Ecclestone, and cancelled his plan to ban cigarette advertising. Then it came to light that Ecclestone had given money to the Labour party. Yes, what a coincidence.
Jeremy Corbyn - there is no way I could vote for a party with him as Leader. I've said it numerous times, if Labour had a good leader, they'd be 20 points ahead in the polls. He is incompetent, and keeps showing it in interviews of the last few weeks. Only today another announcement about reducing rail fares by 75%, with that being funded by Road Fund Licence. Yes, thats really going to work. Great for workers who have a rail station close to them, useless for 75%+ of the population who have little choice but to use a car/powered vehicle.
It all doesnt add up. Only extra taxing those who earn £80k+. Thats such a small proportion of taxpayers that it just couldnt happen, firstly as there would be found a way to limit their earnings by off-shoring etc, and then the amount to be taken wouldnt even cover the extra spending they have promised. I could go on, but Labour have no credence whn they talk monetary matters now.
Diane Abbott - totally incomptetent. Labour have done a great job in keeping her away from interviews.When she does do one, she hasnt got a clue. i could never vote for a party that is likely to have her in the cabinet.
Tories. Financial credence. I know the Country is in the shite with debts. But they have been reducing the deficit. And I think will continue to do so.
BoJo. Another total idiot, but, the main point, he is better than Corbyn.
We've not got any decent Leaders now.
People complain about cuts to everything, FFS, the country was nearly bankrupt, what else could they do?
A bad choice between 2 awful parties, but the Tories are slightly better than the truly awful Labour.
I see a manifesto as a direction rather than an absolute.
Maybe that’s wishful thinking
I hope everyone else avoided C4 news this evening … utterly depressing … group of previously Labour voters embracing the ‘cuddly rogue’ Johnson… they just don’t like or trust the people now running Labour. But then, who does? That they’ll vote for Johnson, despite not trusting him either, is maddening.
Vote Labour please people.
Interesting that there's been little focus on how Labour's WASPI promise may influence voting intentions of women affected.
There are about 4 million; surely they're not all existing labour voters?
At the end of the day Rone...
@ Kelvin-Unfortunately I saw it- the group comprised only those who said that they had voted for Brexit and previously voted Labour- so not any sort of random sample.
https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1201586173325594624?s=09
Anybody know what hell is going off here?
So many levels of weirdness...
Interesting that there’s been little focus on how Labour’s WASPI promise may influence voting intentions of women affected.
There are about 4 million; surely they’re not all existing labour voters?
Just about everyone benefits from Labour’s proposals (and the LibDem ones as well as it happens), plenty of analysis shows that. But people are still voting for Johnson’s team in their millions (not really Conservatives now, are they).
That channel 4 news piece did make for utterly depressing viewing
How people haven’t seen through Johnson’s ‘loveable rogue’ shtick years ago is utterly beyond me.
He’s a sociopath would casually walk past you and leave you dying in a gutter, without a second thought
How people haven’t seen through Johnson’s ‘loveable rogue’ shtick years ago is utterly beyond me
Well I think it's tiring people to be honest. Just a strong sense of his act dwindling with nothing to back it up.
Tories. Financial credence. I know the Country is in the shite with debts. But they have been reducing the deficit. And I think will continue to do so.
Despite the fact that they propose to spend and cut taxes and take us out of the EU, which will cost everyone up to 2k and will cause a drag on the economy. Fixed by the free trade deal with the US, which might take 10 years.
People complain about cuts to everything, FFS, the country was nearly bankrupt, what else could they do?
It wasn't.
Not pursue a deliberate policy of austerity, which has prolonged the pain and delayed the economic recover, as they were told by just about everyone who actually knew anything about it.
Vote how you want but don't buy the lies.
He is incompetent
You honestly think Johnson is any better? On what basis? He's shown no aptitude whatsoever, and he lies constantly.
Only extra taxing those who earn £80k+. Thats such a small proportion of taxpayers that it just couldnt happen, firstly as there would be found a way to limit their earnings by off-shoring etc
You're ignoring the other plans to raise money e.g. tech tax and so on.
Tories. Financial credence. I know the Country is in the shite with debts. But they have been reducing the deficit. And I think will continue to do so.
They cut essential services and benefits to those who need them. They kept taxes low when they could have raised them, and cut money from where it was badly needed. Which also stifled the economy. It's been discussed widely. The poorer end of society is struggling like hell because of the cuts, and you think this is a good thing?
There are two ways to reduce deficits - borrow and spend to invest, or cut everything to the bone. The former works possibly better, but the Tories chose the latter. Why? Cos they want a small government, because they don't want to have to give a shit about helping out poor people. That's the bottom line. They want to shrug their shoulders and say 'tough titty' because that is the whole concept of Conservatism. Small government - let people sort it out amongst themselves. Which sounds great until the rich and powerful squeeze everyone else until they become poor and vulnerable and hey, no-one has to give a shit.
Don't be a part of it.
as they were told by just about everyone who actually knew anything about it.
All the parties agreed significant cuts were required to get debt under control. There is no example of any other country in the world that managed to spend it's way into a boom over the last 10 years. (And Greece tried spending their way out and went utterly tits up.)
If growing an economy was as simple as borrowing and spending there would be no poor countries and every country in the world would be spending like crazy.
Talking of rail fares and labour affordability
We have the highest fares and most profitable rail companies in the world
Monthly train tickets cost:
France: £66
Germany: £118
Belgium: £144
Spain: £108
Italy: £65
Britain: £381
Interesting that there’s been little focus on how Labour’s WASPI promise may influence voting intentions of women affected.
There are about 4 million; surely they’re not all existing labour voters?
A couple of LBC presenters talked about it in one of their podcasts. It wasn't a reliable sample but they were saying in a one hour show dedicated to the issue only one voter who believed it was going to actually be delivered got through to their researcher.
That matches my perception. All the parties have gone so blatantly pork-barrel this time I don't think anyone gives any credibility to any of the bribes. So incredibly, it seems offering a 31k bribe to 4 million people might have won very few votes.
Moreover, the most Labour could find for the NHS is 9bn. Yet they had 58bn un-allocated all along! Mental.
On my FB weather page it says snow coming on the 12th especially oop north.
I guess many elder voters won’t be able to venture out. My mum certainly couldn’t even if she wanted to.
Let’s all do a snow dance.
It's not that difficult to understand working class Tory voters:
Many will have memories of the terrible Labour government of 74-79. Corbyn's Labour, with its nationalisation agenda and general left wing stance will remind many of these voters of this era.
Others will see a lack of fiscal responsibility. The Tories can be just as reckless, but as they are generally perceived as being more careful with spending (which does have some historical precedents) they are more likely to get away with it in voters' eyes.
Aspirational working class types will also not vote Labour, almost as a matter of principle. Ditto many of those who have risen to the ranks of the lower middle class.
JP
There’s a document costing everything, why don’t you give that a read.
Fantastic, please post a quote from the section of the document that explains the 58bn over 5 years for WASPI women.
Nope
😀
I knew it wasn’t in the document
😀
My annual metro card (West Yorkshire) costs me about 120 quid a month through salary sacrifice.
It's cheaper than driving of you factor in parking charges in Leeds. But if you don't commute to a city it's debatable whether it's worth it. And the service is a nightmare at times.
It’s not that difficult to understand working class Tory voters:
Many will have memories of the terrible Labour government of 74-79. Corbyn’s Labour, with its nationalisation agenda and general left wing stance will remind many of these voters of this era.
Others will see a lack of fiscal responsibility. The Tories can be just as reckless, but as they are generally perceived as being more careful with spending (which does have some historical precedents) they are more likely to get away with it in voters’ eyes.
Aspirational working class types will also not vote Labour, almost as a matter of principle. Ditto many of those who have risen to the ranks of the lower middle class.
All of that, plus I'm not especially poor and I can think of far better things to spend many thousands of pounds of my money than nationalising a load of stuff. If money was really tight how does that decision go. Shoes for the kids, or buy out the shareholders of some seriously massive firms... Which is most useful... Let me think...
Also don't forget there are a vast number of working class people with small Ltd Company businesses. The medium and big firms will just move HQ abroad and avoid the corporation tax rise, small shop owners and plumbers can't.
We have the highest fares and most profitable rail companies in the world
When taken as a whole they don't seem very profitable ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-46398947
Obviously you buy shoes... for the kids of shareholders of some seriously massive firms… 😉
and tax evading big companies can take their business with them when they go, I am shure someone else will take up the business they leave behind.
oob - yes, it's all pork barrel politics but voters can be easily persuaded by the illusion of money; particularly when it's allied to a feeling of a wrong being righted.
Regarding small number of callers to LBC, perhaps most were out working to earn money to supplement/replace their deferred pensions.....
Interesting item on C4News about a focus group with ex-Labour voters. They were asked about Johnson. "A character" they said. "Straight talking" one said. Hard to imagine anybody less worthy of being called "straight talking".
But I am lucky. I will survive a Tory government, whereas probably many of the focus group will be foc'ed. So let 'em enjoy it.
Channel 4 10pm tonight. Dispatches Growing Up Poor: Britain’s Breadline Kids
This is the real picture of what austerity by the tories for a decade has created. This is a very common picture in my local area and our Tory MP said it was lies created by labour supporters!
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but if you can watch that and still put a x in the Tory box then you are a very selfish person.
France: £66
Germany: £118
Belgium: £144
Spain: £108
Italy: £65
Britain: £381
Is this actually comparable though? How much is the cost per mile and to what extent are fares in Britain reflective of how long people commute?
To get to £381 a month you’re probably looking at a 50-60 mile rail journey - so around 0.16p a mile.
Edit: the headline figures probably don’t tell the whole story:
https://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-train-fares-comparison.html
There is no example of any other country in the world that managed to spend it’s way into a boom over the last 10 years.
Portugal was cited:
Quite a few other hits about spending out of recessions. It's a thing.
I can think of far better things to spend many thousands of pounds of my money than nationalising a load of stuff. If money was really tight how does that decision go. Shoes for the kids, or buy out the shareholders of some seriously massive firms…
They won't be taxing poor people who can barely afford kids shoes. Not doing that is literally the entire raison d'etre of the Labour party. You really are talking absolute rubbish, it's quite strange how selective your perception is. You utterly mis-udnerstood my point re the WASPI compensation. I knew it wasn't costed (as I said) so my original comment was NOT an attempt to say it was costed - just an invitation for the poster to read about stuff for himself. Point missed completely. And then you mock me for your own misunderstanding of my point. Please try to understand not just sling mud.
Also don’t forget there are a vast number of working class people with small Ltd Company businesses. The medium and big firms will just move HQ abroad and avoid the corporation tax rise, small shop owners and plumbers can’t.
Small businesses won't pay more corporation tax, because it's paid on PROFIT after costs such as salaries. So the only way they will pay more tax is if they are using bonuses and dividends to pay less tax than they should in the first place.
no idea if these are accurate, maybe someone with better gewgleidge skills can confirm/deny?
http://actionforrail.org/the-four-big-myths-of-uk-rail-privatisation/
"The cost of running the railway has more than doubled in real terms since privatisation from £2.4bn per year (1990–91 to 1994–95) to approximately £5.4bn per year (2005–06 to 2009–10).
Official figures show that all but one of the private train operators in the UK receive more in subsidies than they return in the form of franchise payments to the government. In 2013–14, the government contributed £3.8bn to the UK rail industry.
The top five recipients of public subsidy alone received almost £3bn in taxpayer support between 2007 and 2011. This allowed them to make operating profits of £504m – over 90 per cent (£466m) of which was paid to shareholders."
When you buy a rail ticket from a private rail company, to get to work, some of that money goes into the pockets of rich businessmen. Is that the way it should be? Should people be profiting from an essential service? I say no.
and tax evading big companies
Evading?
take their business with them when they go, I am shure someone else will take up the business they leave behind.
The rules don't require them to take their business - just move the nominal HQ. That usually requires redundant-izing a 2-4 uk staff and employing a 2-4 in the new country's address and holding board meetings in that country - a PITA even in the Easy Jet age but in a fiercely competitive world what's the alternative?
All academic because we're talking about working class voters with small LTD firms - tradesmen/small shop owners. A plumber with a van can't move HQ they'll be paying the lot - hence they're examples of working class people who might not be enthusiastic about voting Labour.
Precisely, is Avoidance the correct term?
the rules need to change to not allow tax to be paid in low tax havens for big companies trading in other countries.
I see a manifesto as a direction rather than an absolute.
Ah so the Tories could ignore that referendum then?
Portugal was cited:
Did you read your link? [1]
Portugal simply benefited passively, along with others, from a strong recovery in Europe overall.
It raised the possibility ending Austerity did it, it certainly doesn't conclude it. Hell of a coincidence that it turned around when Europe turned around!
They won’t be taxing poor people who can barely afford kids shoes.
They will. Corporation tax is just like VAT. The customer pays. It's not remotely progressive. The greengrocer has to pass it on to his customers, he doesn't create special money from an alternative source to pay his taxes, he makes all his money from his customers. There is no way to spend the sums Labour (and the Torys) are talking about without the vast majority of us paying. Very few people, if anyone believes the "other people will pay" mantra.
[1] In fact that's the second time you've wasted my time tonight. First you claimed the Grey Book included costings for all Labours promises, now you've shared a link without bothering to read it yourself. I'll hit send on this because I've already written it but I won't be replying to you again for a while.
Interesting item on C4News about a focus group with ex-Labour voters. They were asked about Johnson. “A character” they said. “Straight talking” one said. Hard to imagine anybody less worthy of being called “straight talking”.
I saw one vox pop recently and the respondent described Boris as "a man of his word."
Can;t blame people for being terrified of Corbyn
https://twitter.com/Millar_Colin/status/1201581431371247616
the rules need to change to not allow tax to be paid in low tax havens for big companies trading in other countries.
That's easy, VAT does exactly that. It's not politically very popular though.
Unless you're talking about changing the rules to make companies HQ and pay *corporation* tax in a specific countries. That isn't so easy. If it was somewhere would have cracked it. (Ok, North Korea & East Germany solved it...)
Tories. Financial credence.
Brexit will cost the country, net, about £60bn a year in perpetuity. That is a ‘conservative’ (ha!) estimate. Brexit is a Tory owned problem.
The Tories are not what they were. They are not the party of business or economic prosperity or however else they used to be perceived. They have been taken over by disaster capitalist and spivs who want a quick and gargantuan pay day and **** the rest of us.
Financial credence my arse.
All the parties agreed significant cuts were required to get debt under control. There is no example of any other country in the world that managed to spend it’s way into a boom over the last 10 years. (
I actually don't think labour did. Plus there is a massive difference between cuts and austerity.
Must be a coincidence that the places that borrowed and spent and avoided austerity budgets recovered more fully and more quickly than those that didn't. And that the ones that didn't were getting ample evidence of it but chose to pursue ideology instead of good advice.
Austerity continues to be a drag in the UK economy today while other places are doing really quite well.
IFS said today that No Deal Brexit & Tory manifesto pledges will cost more than Labours spending plans + their norway Brexit
(And unless Johnson does some major u-Turns on his current red lines or EU concede majorly then no deal it is)
The Tories are not what they were.
Not at all, this new breed bears little resemblance to the party of old.
https://www.ft.com/content/8075e68c-7857-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475
“Precisely, is Avoidance the correct term?
the rules need to change to not allow tax to be paid in low tax havens for big companies trading in other countries“
Most of the largest U.K. headquartered PLCs derive the majority of their revenue (and hence profit) overseas. They can therefore legitimately choose to locate their HQ wherever it makes sense to do so - many choose London for access to City firms in particular, law.
Should they choose to domicile in Ireland they would not be “evading” anything but in almost every case shareholders would benefit from the reduction in corporation tax from the 26% Labour are proposing and the 12% that Ireland currently levies.
When most revenue / profit is derived overseas you can’t simply cry “tax haven” because other countries in Europe are more competitive on tax.
The Conservatives stole the miners' pension fund.
Stole? According to the FT it was guaranteed in exchange for 50pc of any surplus (if there was one).
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2019/06/11/govt-mulls-pension-guarantees-for-mineworkers/?page=1
First you claimed the Grey Book included costings for all Labours promises
I most emphatically did not, as I've tried to point out I think twice now.
It raised the possibility ending Austerity did it, it certainly doesn’t conclude it.
I did read the link.. you don't seem to be understanding what's going on here. I'm trying not to post black and white partisan links in an effort to win. I'm trying to have a discussion about the issues. Of course I'm not an economist, and I only have minimal time for research, so I'm throwing information into the mix and trying to be balanced about it. Maybe I'm naive in hoping for people to follow suit 🙂
The greengrocer has to pass it on to his customers, he doesn’t create special money from an alternative source to pay his taxes
Why does a greengrocer pay any corporation tax at all? You do know how corp tax works don't you?
Most of the largest U.K. headquartered PLCs derive the majority of their revenue (and hence profit) overseas.
that is fine and they can pay tax on the % of their overseas profits wherever they make them.
but it seems unfair that it is possible to benefit from the infrastructure and market of a given country and then export those profits outside of its borders to pay a lower rate of tax to a goverment that has little if anything to do with the creation of that profit.
but it seems unfair that it is possible to benefit from the infrastructure and market of a given country and then export those profits outside of its borders to pay a lower rate of tax to a goverment that has little if anything to do with the creation of that profit.
Well, if you can make up rules that stop that happening without going all "North Korea" you can sell it to governments throughout the world and fix the problem for good.
In the meantime there's VAT.
Small businesses won’t pay more corporation tax, because it’s paid on PROFIT after costs such as salaries. So the only way they will pay more tax is if they are using bonuses and dividends to pay less tax than they should in the first place.
You really don't understand this do you? We pay significant sums in corporation tax every year, and we're a very typical small business with 4 employees. The notion that small businesses wouldn't be affected by an increase is nonsense. The only businesses not affected are large organisations that can afford to use arcane offshore structures to stop paying any corporation tax at all.
If corporation tax were reduced to a sensible level we'd probably re-invest our additional revenue, primarily in creating jobs, thereby generating income tax revenues, or increase dividends, which would also generate tax income. Larger companies would also be less likely to try to avoid paying the tax if it were set at a lower level. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good 'all companies are evil and should be taxed to death' doctrine, shall we?
JP
We pay significant sums in corporation tax every year, and we’re a very typical small business with 4 employees.
Ok, fair point. I'm thinking of the plumbers etc individual traders.
Curious as to why you bank profits each year though? Is it simply a case of not being able to spend it by year end?
If corporation tax were reduced to a sensible level we’d probably re-invest our additional revenue, primarily in creating jobs, thereby generating income tax revenues, or increase dividends, which would also generate tax income.
So I definitely don't understand how lower corporation tax rates would lead you to re-invest revenue. If you re-invest it then you don't pay corp tax on it do you? This is surely the entire point of corp tax - to encourage you to re-invest? What do you do with it if you aren't re-investing it? Put it in the bank? Isn't that what attracts tax?
Dividends are taxed, but surely less than corporation tax which is why contractors pay themselves that way... unless it's changed since I last did it.
But let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good ‘all companies are evil and should be taxed to death’ doctrine, shall we?
Not even close to my position. I'm trying to have a discussion, not win an argument.
Well, if you can make up rules that stop that happening without going all “North Korea” you can sell it to governments throughout the world and fix the problem for good.
jjprestidge
Member
The only businesses not affected are large organisations that can afford to use arcane offshore structures to stop paying any corporation tax at all.
And most small businesses, because most small businesses don't pay corporation tax. I think we did this a couple of weeks ago? Sole traders and partnerships don't pay corporation tax, as they're not corporations. They amount for 2/3ds of all companies in the UK and of course that's heavily biased towards small companies.
Some people either don't understand how corporation tax works, or want to misrepresent who has to pay it. Or like Boris Johnson, can only make their argument by lying about it.
Of course, the Labour policy is simply reversing the cuts of recent years to where we were in 2011, 26%. It wasn't high then, and it wouldn't be high today- in fact it's bang on the EU average, and under the world average. UK businesses will still benefit from a lower rate of corporation tax than Germany, France, Portugal, Belgium, Italy, and Greece. And Japan, and Mexico, and pretty much the same as the USA.
For some reason the Tories say that to compete, we have to compete on corporation tax with Lithuania, rather than our european industrialised peers. Never quite understood why so many conservatives think the UK is somehow inferior to Germany and France and can only compete by undercutting them massively. (because even with Labour's hikes, we will still undercut them, just not by as much.)
(And Greece tried spending their way out and went utterly tits up.)
Greece doesn't issue it's own currency.
Ah so the Tories could ignore that referendum then?
Why would they? Tories are mostly anti-EU.
Why would they? - they're mostly anti-EU.
So I definitely don’t understand how lower corporation tax rates would lead you to re-invest revenue. If you re-invest it then you don’t pay corp tax on it do you?
That's correct.
That's exactly what we do. We spend our money on film equipment and get 100% tax relief. That money could equally go on business premises, cost of sales etc.
Ofcourse we have less wages but it's all about growth.
There's some rubbish on here about Corporation tax.
You've got it correct Molgrips.
Don't forget the Tories are unable to carry out their final cuts to corporation tax because they say they want more money for hospitals.
This is despite the fact they say that lowering corp tax brings more in.
They never tell the truth. No one tells the truth about the monetary system save a few prominent MMTers.
If growing an economy was as simple as borrowing and spending there would be no poor countries and every country in the world would be spending like crazy
That's because there are other constraints:
Inflation, slack in the economy via the labour force and resources and it helps if you are the sole issuer of you're your own money.
We will only ever grow the economy by spending - our country has stalled because of lack of spending. It has to happen.
A government 'debt' is a positive in the private sector. The money is then taxed back out of circulation.
Our monetary system demands this or we will never grow. Why do you think the Tories have be an abject failure ? - it's because they don't spend, and on the right things.