This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Stirlingsays 02 Jun 17 2.13pm | |
---|---|
'The Independent' appears to be very anti May. I find that amusing.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
malxeagles Wimbledon 02 Jun 17 2.18pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
This analysis has so many problems with it, not least that there is not "more incentive to make bigger profits" due to tax rates being a few percentage points lower. No company looks at a 26% tax rate and goes, oh well then I won't bother as I will only get 74p for every pound of extra profit I get, I will rather get zero. It's the role of all company directors to maximise shareholder return, which will involve maximising post tax profits whatever the rate of tax. In terms of tax avoidance it's the same. As long as tax rate is above zero there will be incentives to avoid it, and the incentives will be positive as long as the money you pay in professional fees is less than tax saved, which depends not only on rate but on quantum of profits. What the government has done is increase taxable base while decreasing the tax rate, so making it harder for companies to class profits as "non-taxable" or shift them to lower tax jurisdictions. But this should be the case whatever the rate of tax. This move should be commended and it's thanks to the OECD that this has happened. The incentive to move profits to tax havens still exists but in practice it's now much more difficult The rate of CT in the UK is way way below the rest of the G20 and ability to avoid has decreased so there is definitely scope to increase rates. Companies still base themselves in Japan and Germany despite their comparatively high rates of CT due to skilled labour force and high quality of infrastructure and public services (paid for by those taxes) The last time they cut it they also changed the method of accounting for tax receipts so in the latest figures they have effectively had some double counting as certain companies will have been caught twice in the official statistics, therefore making them misleading. Tax on corporate profits as a share of GDP has fallen every single year from 2010. So in real terms they have fallen. Business investment is very weak at the moment and has been since the GFC. Lower tax rates have made no difference. Corporate share of investment has barely increased according to the OECD since 2010 and certainly shows no sign of having been impacted by lower tax rates. The tax take has also been boosted by the return to profit of the banking sector, which cannot be attributed to the government.
Thanks for the info. It is interesting to see that the actual figures are open to manipulation. As you seem to know a lot more about finance than myself, do you think the proposed drop in Corporation Tax to 16% would cost the tax payer money in lost revenue, create more money for the government or make little difference?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 02 Jun 17 2.19pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Sanders v Trump would have been interesting. Harder to attack....Sanders would have probably won. Not everyone thinks so though and this is an interesting read on the topic. Crooked Hilary seemed to cut through. Not sure the "mud" referred to in this article would have carried the same weight. Plus the anti-establishment vote would have at least been split in part if it were Trump vs Sanders. As it was it swung heavily in favour of Trump. I agree, these "what ifs" can often be interesting to contemplate!
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
malxeagles Wimbledon 02 Jun 17 2.24pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by NickinOX
Why would you need to find money for a tax cut? Surely you would only need to find money to cover expenses? Whether it is a good policy or not, is another matter. Lost revenue. It begs the question with the economy being in trouble, if we can afford to loose this revenue?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
steeleye20 Croydon 02 Jun 17 2.28pm | |
---|---|
In contrast to a Tory campaign of self-aggrandisement, childish mantras, personalised abuse and uncosted manifesto policies, Labour's manifesto pledges to abolish zero-hour contracts, boost incomes, tax the rich and big business and renationalise railways, the Royal Mail and utilities are proving popular. Floreat Corbyn
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 02 Jun 17 2.29pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by malxeagles
Thanks for the info. It is interesting to see that the actual figures are open to manipulation. As you seem to know a lot more about finance than myself, do you think the proposed drop in Corporation Tax to 16% would cost the tax payer money in lost revenue, create more money for the government or make little difference? Hard to say. What the government has done is reduced the tax rate and increased the tax base. It depends on how successful measures being brought in this year are in stopping companies move profits to offshore tax havens is. In my opinion, given new anti-avoidance measures and the greater difficulty in accessing tax-havens, plus the relatively low level in place currently, it's not necessary to decrease rates any further and a modest increase would probably result in higher tax take than a decrease. In terms of value for money I think 26% corporation tax would be good value for money if public services and education benefit from proper investment as a result. This is a good article by a good economist on the matter: [Link] I should also add that I believe that there should be a higher general tax rate, a lower small business rate and more generous tax breaks for R&D and green tech. Edited by CambridgeEagle (02 Jun 2017 2.34pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 02 Jun 17 2.31pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
'The Independent' appears to be very anti May. I find that amusing. The Independent is possibly the most innacurately titled publication in history.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
elgrande bedford 02 Jun 17 2.38pm | |
---|---|
Let's have a reminder what labour has done to our country feel free to share 1) Up to 50 thousand 'excess' deaths were recorded at hospitals during the last Labour Goverment. (Research by Sir Brian Jarman of Imperial College). Mark Lewis Tibbetts
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 02 Jun 17 2.46pm | |
---|---|
43. Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are c*nts
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 02 Jun 17 2.46pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Crooked Hilary seemed to cut through. Not sure the "mud" referred to in this article would have carried the same weight. Plus the anti-establishment vote would have at least been split in part if it were Trump vs Sanders. As it was it swung heavily in favour of Trump. I agree, these "what ifs" can often be interesting to contemplate! I agree, Sanders would have taken a lot of that anti-establishment vote. The rust belt wouldn't have fallen anywhere as easily to Trump. Considering Clinton won the popular vote anyway but was incredibly unpopular I think Sanders would and should have beaten Trump. Sanders and Trump are both incredibly old though.....In Europe potential leaders get younger and younger and in the US the opposite..... I wouldn't be surprised if the next contenders have to be taken out of cryogenic storage.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
elgrande bedford 02 Jun 17 2.49pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
43. Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are c*nts
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
steeleye20 Croydon 02 Jun 17 2.52pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
43. Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are c*nts Just the sort of rhetoric that could see Labour in office again........
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.