Indirect taxes are regressive and should not be used as a replacement for income tax. VAT is bloody complicated as well. It would also be a nightmare for stuff which has no VAT on it as it would go up in price as well, which includes stuff like rent, banking and insurance as these are exempt activities and the companies involved in their provision cannot reclaim VAT so their costs would go up and therefore their prices go up.

So what the article ACTUALLY says is that the Treasury estimated that the COST of the cut in rates would be offset by 40-60% in the long run due to increase in take on OTHER taxes as a result of increased spending due to additional retained earnings for companies.

It then says, as I said, that banks are now making money again post GFC and that their utilisation of carried forward losses has been restricted (widened tax base as I said).

It also says that business investment is subdued (bad for the economy) despite the cut in tax rates, which meant that there was lower levels of tax relief for investment (again this is in SPITE of a cut not because of it).

They then mention BEPS, action on anti-avoidance and diverted profits tax which I also mentioned. This has nothing to do with the rate.

The only part of the article that claims increases in tax take are in any part due to the cuts in the rate are by making Britain more attractive as an HQ for multinationals. However companies will make suce decisions on a number of factors, including infrastructure, available talent, Brexit, other taxes and rates payable. It's notable that an effect of incoming BEPS legislation will force companies that locate in the UK have to be doing so in reality for genuine commercial reasons and have trade here to take advantage of the lower tax rates. In order to do this companies will require there to be well trained, healthy and motivated staff and the infrastructure to run a business. How do you provide this? From taxation. Companies cannot have their cake and eat it too.

Perhaps staffing levels at HMRC should be increased so that there's manpower to chase down evaders / avoiders.
How much would it cost to train and pay a tax person per year. 30-40k? How much tax are they likely to track down, alot more than that I'd chance.

I think incentivising corporate tax cuts makes sense. Start at 26% but if your lowest paid worker earns 30k a year pro-rata then you get 25%. But if half your workforce earns more than 30k a year, you pay 15% etc.

If your a Landlord or property business, then your corporation tax is adjusted from 26% additionally based on how you pay your staff, and how your rents compare to the market value.

I'd have no problem with companies paying 0% corporation tax if in doing so they saved themselves some money, their staff got better wages and social function was better served (Health care for all permanent staff -10% corporation tax - benefits the staff and the NHS).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I give her till Monday.

[Link]

Among Conservative voters, Theresa May had an 85 per cent favourability rating in April, which has now fallen to 57 per cent.

If you tried really hard it would be difficult to get results like that.

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."