Diane Abbott in fine form this morning...

[dingodan]

I enjoyed listening to that with my labour supporting buddies.

 

[Triggaaar]

And if that cost people in the UK there jobs you'd also be comfortable with that?

It wouldn't.

Additionally the extra burden on the state, decreased tax revenues.

There wouldn't be an extra burden.

 

[Rod Marsh]

It wouldn't.
There wouldn't be an extra burden.

You think that taxing a company more and reducing it's profitability will have no impact on jobs. Oh well that's fine then. I mean history shows this to be the case.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

I personally believe a dead person's money ought to be distributed in a fair way across the society that helped them become wealthy, simply because there are economic arguments against pretty much all other methods of taxation. How is it fair that wealth remains in families from generation to generation, through no other reason than an accident of birth?.

Yer, but then I would argue that society hasn't made me wealthy. ****ing hard work has, and as it stands my net worth is well over a million, so why should that be spread out. I like many others made it from nothing, so why should it be shared out to anyone other than who I choose.

You are just a left wing looney, making noises that effect millions, but probably not yourself.

You wish you had built enough of a fortune to be in the inheritance bracket. But as you've not been lucky enough/worked hard enough, or been bothered, you want to take take take off everyone who has.

Or is it just a select few at the top of the tree you want to tax IN which case what happens when they **** off abroad with their billions?

I have paid stupid amounts of tax over the years. Why I should pay it again to pass it on to my children is beyond me, especially when there is so much waste with taxes in this country.

But again, that's the left wings answer. Throw money at it and let the Tories sort it out when we **** the country and leave it stink.

Well, hopefully now the left is history, and after the Tories walk this election, an alternative opposition presents itself, because if Abbott is big hitter in the Labour party, and the Labour party is the main opposition, you are going to have to put up with a powerful Tory government for many decades to come.

The left is finished.
We are exiting Europe.

Grow a pair of bollocks and except it.



We are coming out of Europe.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

And if that cost people in the UK there jobs you'd also be comfortable with that? Additionally the extra burden on the state, decreased tax revenues.

I would be. If they don't pay there fair share, make them or get rid. If Amazon aren't selling someone a TV, then someone will replace them. Why should they be allowed to take money out of our country as the cost of other businesses.

If we had UK companies paying UK tax. then we would have more taxes to spend on things that we need to spend on.

If we paid UK workers, to work in the UK, they would pay their taxes here, they would shop here, those shops would employ UK workers who pay tax, who in turn would shop in the UK and the cycles continues, and the government raises much more tax.

As soon as money leaves the UK, it leaves the governments abilities to tax it, so every worker from overseas who sends money back home, is draining the UK economy of much needed revenue..... but thats racist to say that!!

You need to tax the many (fairly) as taxing the super rich never will and never has worked.

 

[Triggaaar]

You think that taxing a company more and reducing it's profitability will have no impact on jobs. Oh well that's fine then. I mean history shows this to be the case.

History hasn't dealt with the kind of tax dodging we're talking about. Companies that need to keep costs down in order to survive are badly affected by increases in tax, and do have to lay off people. We're not talking about that sort of company here.

I gave a few examples:
Jimmy Carr (and the like) - paid 1% on the millions they earned. Taxing them at a fair rate will not cost jobs.
Amazon - they have employees here to distribute their goods. They have the minimum employees they can, and pay them minimum wage. Taxing them a fair rate will not mean they don't need the distribution network here, they'll still need it.
Google - they employ high earners here for marketing etc. They're somewhat secretive about the details though, as they're busy dodging tax. Taxing Google won't put them in risk of failing though.
Starbucks - other coffee companies here have to pay tax and survive. If some branches became uneconomical for Starbucks, then their competitors would do better and people would still have work. People will still be drinking coffee, and people will still need to make that coffee.

You're just assuming that because some businesses couldn't cope with an increase in tax, that it's best for all companies to pay virtually non at all.

 

[BensGrandad]

Is this the same Diane Abbott who is competing with Lenny Henry as to who has the biggest chip on their shoulder.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This is more than cringeworthy, it's painful. The man doesn't know the meaning of permanent.

[tweet]859370525860167684[/tweet]


https://twitter.com/vicderbyshire/status/859370525860167684

 

[Simster]

Yer, but then I would argue that society hasn't made me wealthy. ****ing hard work has, and as it stands my net worth is well over a million, so why should that be spread out. I like many others made it from nothing, so why should it be shared out to anyone other than who I choose.

You are just a left wing looney, making noises that effect millions, but probably not yourself.

You wish you had built enough of a fortune to be in the inheritance bracket. But as you've not been lucky enough/worked hard enough, or been bothered, you want to take take take off everyone who has.

Or is it just a select few at the top of the tree you want to tax IN which case what happens when they **** off abroad with their billions?

I have paid stupid amounts of tax over the years. Why I should pay it again to pass it on to my children is beyond me, especially when there is so much waste with taxes in this country.

But again, that's the left wings answer. Throw money at it and let the Tories sort it out when we **** the country and leave it stink.

Well, hopefully now the left is history, and after the Tories walk this election, an alternative opposition presents itself, because if Abbott is big hitter in the Labour party, and the Labour party is the main opposition, you are going to have to put up with a powerful Tory government for many decades to come.

The left is finished.
We are exiting Europe.

Grow a pair of bollocks and except it.



We are coming out of Europe.

Your net worth is less than mine, so as I say, you're talking out of your arse.

I'm no left wing looney, I just happen to disagree with your angry little Englander view on life.

 

[beorhthelm]

...Amazon - they have employees here to distribute their goods. They have the minimum employees they can, and pay them minimum wage. Taxing them a fair rate will not mean they don't need the distribution network here, they'll still need it.
Google - they employ high earners here for marketing etc. They're somewhat secretive about the details though, as they're busy dodging tax. Taxing Google won't put them in risk of failing though.

how do you tax companies where their production or value adding work is carried out abroad? or if they dont actually book a profit anywhere? we can tax their revenues (essentially another VAT, paid directly by the consumer) or as being mooted by some on the left have global taxation whereby profit is accounted country by country, and paid accordingly. this is a great idea when you consider that the UK would find itself in receipt of profits from Mercedes and Samsung as they share their profits taxes around the globe; prehaps we lose as Vodafone and HSBC share their profits taxes around.

the problem with focusing on the vagaries of how some modern business have set up their tax affairs is that the remedies will have an effect on the older businesses too. often the rules they are abusing have been put im place deliberately to deal with older problem. sometimes that are a consequence of a certain european project to create a single market...

and while the likes of Google might be dodging corporation taxes, as you recognise they are employing high earning professionals, paying out NI and generating income taxes, as well as business rates and general investment in local economy (all that office construction isnt free and created economic activity and taxes). people worry too much about the entity that pay taxes, when in economic theory its always ultimately paid by the wider population through employment taxes, prices or potentially fewer jobs and lower returns on shareholding.

 

[Triggaaar]

as it stands my net worth is well over a million

Your net worth is less than mine

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes. I don't think companies like Amazon. Goodle and Starbucks pay enough, and I think we could have a system where they pay more. I don't think high earners like Jimmy Carr pay enough (1%), because of loopholes.

From the little I've read of your posts on this thread, I agree with the principle you're advocating, i.e. shifting the tax burden to assets (especially capital, but also high end property, of which there's a lot in this country now), closing down loopholes such that the tax take is greater and comes from those with the 'broadest shoulders'. I also agree that the tax burden shouldn't be that high on labour, although there should be a progressive taxation (again, with loopholes culled).

 

[Rod Marsh]

History hasn't dealt with the kind of tax dodging we're talking about. Companies that need to keep costs down in order to survive are badly affected by increases in tax, and do have to lay off people. We're not talking about that sort of company here.

I gave a few examples:
Jimmy Carr (and the like) - paid 1% on the millions they earned. Taxing them at a fair rate will not cost jobs.
Amazon - they have employees here to distribute their goods. They have the minimum employees they can, and pay them minimum wage. Taxing them a fair rate will not mean they don't need the distribution network here, they'll still need it.
Google - they employ high earners here for marketing etc. They're somewhat secretive about the details though, as they're busy dodging tax. Taxing Google won't put them in risk of failing though.
Starbucks - other coffee companies here have to pay tax and survive. If some branches became uneconomical for Starbucks, then their competitors would do better and people would still have work. People will still be drinking coffee, and people will still need to make that coffee.

You're just assuming that because some businesses couldn't cope with an increase in tax, that it's best for all companies to pay virtually non at all.

Companies care about the bottom line, their shareholders and profitability. Even if Amazon kept the same number of staff, prices would inevitably go up to ensure profit remained the same. Demand would drop and people would again be at risk again.

Franchise owners of coffee shops do pay tax. I believe this is the standard model. If Starbucks pays more tax, it's getting passed on to the franchise owner. Which will then lead to people being at risk.

I don't know about google, but my default isn't they must be dodging tax. They employ a variety of people in a huge number of different areas not just marketing. A lot of highly skilled people in the uk and Ireland. They spend hundreds of millions on buildings, staff, training and utilities. I'd say encouraging them to move or outsource staff to different countries is a big risk.

I don't know what the answer is. I just don't think fixing tax loop holes immediately fixes things. It may appear fairer but doesn't actually benefit the country as a whole.

 

[Rogero]

She has not got a clue.How is she an MP?

 

[Triggaaar]

how do you tax companies where their production or value adding work is carried out abroad? or if they dont actually book a profit anywhere?

Removing the loopholes that companies like Amazon use is not a 5 minute job, but it's a job that I'm confident can be done.

Companies lie about their profits - for example, pretending that their coffee costs 10 times the norm, because they buy it from their own company in another country that has added the markup. It is clear that said company does the production and value adding here, where they serve the coffee. I believe our government should be able to adjust the rules on how said company pays its tax.

we can tax their revenues (essentially another VAT, paid directly by the consumer)

We can break down their cost and revenue and charge a fair tax, and if they don't like it, they can stop trading. They'd pay.

or as being mooted by some on the left have global taxation whereby profit is accounted country by country, and paid accordingly.

That's a nice dream, but in the short and medium term is a non starter. Each country is interested in looking after its own interests, those that bring in the most tax are not going to share it.

the problem with focusing on the vagaries of how some modern business have set up their tax affairs is that the remedies will have an effect on the older businesses too.

It could be done.

and while the likes of Google might be dodging corporation taxes, as you recognise they are employing high earning professionals, paying out NI and generating income taxes, as well as business rates and general investment in local economy (all that office construction isnt free and created economic activity and taxes).

Those are all important things, but they would still exist even if we taxed them.

people worry too much about the entity that pay taxes, when in economic theory its always ultimately paid by the wider population through employment taxes, prices or potentially fewer jobs and lower returns on shareholding.

Not when a large chunk of the money leaves the country though.

 

[Triggaaar]

Companies care about the bottom line, their shareholders and profitability. Even if Amazon kept the same number of staff, prices would inevitably go up to ensure profit remained the same.

That is incorrect. Amazon already put the prices as high as possible to maximise profits. If they put the prices up, they'll sell less and people will buy their stuff elsewhere (which is good news for the rest of the industry).

Franchise owners of coffee shops do pay tax. I believe this is the standard model. If Starbucks pays more tax, it's getting passed on to the franchise owner. Which will then lead to people being at risk.

No, it doesn't work like that. If you're thinking of starting a coffee shop, you will consider being independent or taking a franchise, and the cost of the franchise will affect your decision. If the cost of a Starbucks franchise goes up you'll be more likely to take a franchise elsewhere or be independent. If Starbucks could charge more for their franchises and make a larger profit they'd already be doing it.

 

[gordonchas]

Companies lie about their profits - for example, pretending that their coffee costs 10 times the norm, because they buy it from their own company in another country that has added the markup. It is clear that said company does the production and value adding here, where they serve the coffee. I believe our government should be able to adjust the rules on how said company pays its tax.

We can break down their cost and revenue and charge a fair tax, and if they don't like it, they can stop trading. They'd pay.

We already have that. This is what people who work for HMRC do. I don't know if you've had any direct involvement with these people? They're not easy to convince. Intra-company transfer pricing is something they already adjust for.

In reply to a previous point about VAT, that has been impossible to apply to multinationals who set up their HQ in another EC country due to the Treaty of Rome. Brexit puts paid to that.

You'd think those people who don't think multinationals pay enough tax in the UK would be happy about this. But it seems most of them want to remain in the EC which prevents it.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Or her families links to offshore trusts

Interesting sight in Hastings this afternoon. A lot of graffiti has appeared across the town with the words - Amber Rudd, shame on you - daubed in red paint. As you'd drive in on The A21 from London, it'd be the first thing you'd see under the bridge as you enter the town.

 

[Triggaaar]

We already have that. This is what people who work for HMRC do. I don't know if you've had any direct involvement with these people? They're not easy to convince. Intra-company transfer pricing is something they already adjust for.

Fortunately not something I've had to deal with, but yes I know that's what they do. Unfortunately however, there are loopholes that allow companies like those we're discussing get away with it. It doesn't help with the likes of Cameron senior's business is helping these people.

You'd think those people who don't think multinationals pay enough tax in the UK would be happy about this. But it seems most of them want to remain in the EC which prevents it.

Indeed.

 

[Rod Marsh]

That is incorrect. Amazon already put the prices as high as possible to maximise profits. If they put the prices up, they'll sell less and people will buy their stuff elsewhere (which is good news for the rest of the industry).

No, it doesn't work like that. If you're thinking of starting a coffee shop, you will consider being independent or taking a franchise, and the cost of the franchise will affect your decision. If the cost of a Starbucks franchise goes up you'll be more likely to take a franchise elsewhere or be independent. If Starbucks could charge more for their franchises and make a larger profit they'd already be doing it.

Companies don't care about profit? I've heard it all. Oh and great, all the existing franchise owners get screwed. I'm bored of this now. Have a good day.