Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: jakswan on September 28, 2015, 11:35:40 AM
-
Will it work? I'm up for taxing the rich as much as we practically can, I suppose the counter argument is it could kill financial services sector.
I'm liking Corbyn and his team certainly changed the political agenda from bland grey safe politics or the super spinners SNP!
Couldn't see it when he was voted in but maybe he can make a real change to UK politics.
-
Rich people can afford to go elsewhere when the tax rate becomes punitive.
The other problem is that there aren't that many of them.
-
Individuals, possibly; but I've seen one estimate that if all the tax-dodging corporations were made to pay their fair whack it would rake in more than £120 billion a year.
-
Individuals, possibly; but I've seen one estimate that if all the tax-dodging corporations were made to pay their fair whack it would rake in more than £120 billion a year.
The problem with that estimate is that it assumes that the tax dodging corporations would still be here doing business.
In fact, that is the problem with taxes in general: they are inefficient. I'm not saying we should collect no taxes that would be silly. I'm saying that putting taxes up will not get you the same extra proportion of tax revenue.
-
I don't think Starbucks and Amazon are going to quit the UK market.
-
I don't think Starbucks and Amazon are going to quit the UK market.
The minute that taxes make them unprofitable in the UK they will be gone. That is Starbucks will be gone. I'd be surprised if Amazon turns much of a profit in the UK at all. It's World wide profit is pretty small for a company of its size
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hey-look-amazon-actually-turned-profit/
-
Individuals, possibly; but I've seen one estimate that if all the tax-dodging corporations were made to pay their fair whack it would rake in more than £120 billion a year.
The problem with that estimate is that it assumes that the tax dodging corporations would still be here doing business.
In fact, that is the problem with taxes in general: they are inefficient. I'm not saying we should collect no taxes that would be silly. I'm saying that putting taxes up will not get you the same extra proportion of tax revenue.
If Starbucks or Amazon can't operate without dodging taxes then, quite frankly, they shouldn't be in business. No one else can get away with it so why should multi-national corporations?
-
If Starbucks quit the UK the image fallout will be a disaster.
-
Apparently the Robin Hood tax won't be happening unless every other country does it, reality slaps idealism in the face maybe?
I think most people would agree that those companies generating most of their profit in the UK should pay their tax in the UK. If that loophole is closed its bound to hurt the Irish economy and the plans of NI and Scotland (I think SNP have done one of their flip flops on this issue now though).
-
Rich people can afford to go elsewhere when the tax rate becomes punitive.
The other problem is that there aren't that many of them.
Whilst not saying that they might not need to pay more, the richest 5% (I think that's the figure I read in an Economist article a while back) of the British population already pay 10% of the UK tax bill. In other words, it wouldn't take that many of them to leave to leave the British economy in bigger problems than it already is. Furthermore, most of that 5% are industrialists and company owners.
I think that the quicker the loopholes that exist are closed the better, as at least that would make a whole slice of legal professionals redundant, thus allowing what companies and individuals pay for their services to be directed into the tax system.
-
If Starbucks quit the UK the image fallout will be a disaster.
Are you referring to the image fallout for Stabucks or UK plc?
-
Individuals, possibly; but I've seen one estimate that if all the tax-dodging corporations were made to pay their fair whack it would rake in more than £120 billion a year.
The problem with that estimate is that it assumes that the tax dodging corporations would still be here doing business.
In fact, that is the problem with taxes in general: they are inefficient. I'm not saying we should collect no taxes that would be silly. I'm saying that putting taxes up will not get you the same extra proportion of tax revenue.
If Starbucks or Amazon can't operate without dodging taxes then, quite frankly, they shouldn't be in business. No one else can get away with it so why should multi-national corporations?
My thoughts exactly. This defeatist, hands-in-the-air attitude of "Oh no, we can't start pressing companies to pay their fair share in case they take their ball and go elsewhere" is quite abhorrent.
-
If Starbucks quit the UK the image fallout will be a disaster.
The coffee shop on the corner, the one with the Starbucks logo, is in danger. It is perceived to be "Starbucks". But in all probability it is a franchise, operated by someone employing local labour and paying all appropriate taxes.
The owner of that business has done no wrong. We need to ensure we do not attack the wrong target.
-
Starbucks would be no loss if it departed from these shores, imo!
-
If Starbucks quit the UK the image fallout will be a disaster.
The coffee shop on the corner, the one with the Starbucks logo, is in danger. It is perceived to be "Starbucks". But in all probability it is a franchise, operated by someone employing local labour and paying all appropriate taxes.
The owner of that business has done no wrong. We need to ensure we do not attack the wrong target.
In fact, almost all the big groups - like Starbucks, Costa, MacDonalds, etc - are franchised. As you say, the local franchisees probably submit their dues to HQ in good faith, only for the HQ to fail to pay their dues.
-
Starbucks would be no loss if it departed from these shores, imo!
Why?
-
If Starbucks or Amazon can't operate without dodging taxes then, quite frankly, they shouldn't be in business. No one else can get away with it so why should multi-national corporations?
I totally agree. Your point?
-
If Starbucks quit the UK the image fallout will be a disaster.
Not as much a disaster as being unable to operate profitably in the UK.
-
If Starbucks or Amazon can't operate without dodging taxes then, quite frankly, they shouldn't be in business. No one else can get away with it so why should multi-national corporations?
I totally agree. Your point?
I thought that was obvious, apart from the fact that I replied to the wrong post. ::)
-
If Starbucks quit the UK the image fallout will be a disaster.
Not as much a disaster as being unable to operate profitably in the UK.
I meant the UK's image.
-
My thoughts exactly. This defeatist, hands-in-the-air attitude of "Oh no, we can't start pressing companies to pay their fair share in case they take their ball and go elsewhere" is quite abhorrent.
There is nothing defeatist, it is a reality. Raising taxes is a deterrent to doing business which means that raising taxes by 20% means you will not get 20% extra revenue and you will put some companies that were marginal before you raised taxes out of business permanently.
Here is an example, shamelessly ripped off from Tim Harford. Let's say I own a coffee shop and I calculate my costs per latte are £1.98 so I determine that the minimum price I'll sell a latte for is £2.00. You come in and you want to buy a latte. The maximum you are prepared to pay for it is £2.30. I will obviously sell you a coffee and the exact price you pay will be between £2 and £2.30 depending on how many other coffee shops are in the vicinity.
The government says "right we want some of that coffee action so we are going to put a 20% tax on each cup of coffee". Now the minimum I can sell a cup of coffee for is £2.40 which is more than you are prepared to pay. So you don't buy a coffee, I don't sell one and most importantly, the government doesn't get its 20% either. In fact they also lose out on the VAT, corporation tax and potentially income tax if I have to lay staff off.
-
Starbucks would be no loss if it departed from these shores, imo!
Why?
The coffee is rubbish. Well, the lattι is it doesn't taste like there is any coffee in it. But I expect all the thousands of people that Starbucks employ and their suppliers will not share Floo's opinion.
-
My thoughts exactly. This defeatist, hands-in-the-air attitude of "Oh no, we can't start pressing companies to pay their fair share in case they take their ball and go elsewhere" is quite abhorrent.
There is nothing defeatist, it is a reality. Raising taxes is a deterrent to doing business which means that raising taxes by 20% means you will not get 20% extra revenue and you will put some companies that were marginal before you raised taxes out of business permanently.
Here is an example, shamelessly ripped off from Tim Harford. Let's say I own a coffee shop and I calculate my costs per latte are £1.98 so I determine that the minimum price I'll sell a latte for is £2.00. You come in and you want to buy a latte. The maximum you are prepared to pay for it is £2.30. I will obviously sell you a coffee and the exact price you pay will be between £2 and £2.30 depending on how many other coffee shops are in the vicinity.
The government says "right we want some of that coffee action so we are going to put a 20% tax on each cup of coffee". Now the minimum I can sell a cup of coffee for is £2.40 which is more than you are prepared to pay. So you don't buy a coffee, I don't sell one and most importantly, the government doesn't get its 20% either. In fact they also lose out on the VAT, corporation tax and potentially income tax if I have to lay staff off.
It's only "reality" because governments let them get away with it.
-
My thoughts exactly. This defeatist, hands-in-the-air attitude of "Oh no, we can't start pressing companies to pay their fair share in case they take their ball and go elsewhere" is quite abhorrent.
There is nothing defeatist, it is a reality. Raising taxes is a deterrent to doing business which means that raising taxes by 20% means you will not get 20% extra revenue and you will put some companies that were marginal before you raised taxes out of business permanently.
Here is an example, shamelessly ripped off from Tim Harford. Let's say I own a coffee shop and I calculate my costs per latte are £1.98 so I determine that the minimum price I'll sell a latte for is £2.00. You come in and you want to buy a latte. The maximum you are prepared to pay for it is £2.30. I will obviously sell you a coffee and the exact price you pay will be between £2 and £2.30 depending on how many other coffee shops are in the vicinity.
The government says "right we want some of that coffee action so we are going to put a 20% tax on each cup of coffee". Now the minimum I can sell a cup of coffee for is £2.40 which is more than you are prepared to pay. So you don't buy a coffee, I don't sell one and most importantly, the government doesn't get its 20% either. In fact they also lose out on the VAT, corporation tax and potentially income tax if I have to lay staff off.
It's only "reality" because governments let them get away with it.
Did you actually read any of my post?
-
My thoughts exactly. This defeatist, hands-in-the-air attitude of "Oh no, we can't start pressing companies to pay their fair share in case they take their ball and go elsewhere" is quite abhorrent.
There is nothing defeatist, it is a reality. Raising taxes is a deterrent to doing business which means that raising taxes by 20% means you will not get 20% extra revenue and you will put some companies that were marginal before you raised taxes out of business permanently.
Here is an example, shamelessly ripped off from Tim Harford. Let's say I own a coffee shop and I calculate my costs per latte are £1.98 so I determine that the minimum price I'll sell a latte for is £2.00. You come in and you want to buy a latte. The maximum you are prepared to pay for it is £2.30. I will obviously sell you a coffee and the exact price you pay will be between £2 and £2.30 depending on how many other coffee shops are in the vicinity.
The government says "right we want some of that coffee action so we are going to put a 20% tax on each cup of coffee". Now the minimum I can sell a cup of coffee for is £2.40 which is more than you are prepared to pay. So you don't buy a coffee, I don't sell one and most importantly, the government doesn't get its 20% either. In fact they also lose out on the VAT, corporation tax and potentially income tax if I have to lay staff off.
I kind of agree but that doesn't accurately describe big corps like Google. I work for a company that spends £2.5m a year with Google, we pay Google Dublin (none of the adverts run in Ireland), so Ireland collects the corp tax, but the profit is generated in the UK.
As I understand it Apple will sell you a phone that costs £500 but £100 to make, Apple Luxembourg sell the phone to Apple UK for £450.
There are many like Ado that peddle easy answers it will interesting to see how Corbyn reacts, who had this idealism for years, hits reality. I'm already seeing some spin from Corbyn already, as one commentator put it, this isn't new politics its old politics done badly.
-
Actually on this topic I had a conversation with my Mum about this and we played a hypothetical game. My Mum was appointed First Minister of Wales with increased tax raising powers, she said it was stupid that anyone should earn more than £150k a year and the tax rate at that level should be 100%.
Fast forward a few years and oddly the biggest impact was Swansea City who had been relegated twice. Not only had Swansea lost its expertise in running corporate events and grounds keeping but oddly pubs, restaurants and transport had to lay off loads of people.
The tax take had actually collapsed and now a culture of being on the dole was rife. Despite this desperate situation at least the lefties were able to sleep better and had killed any neo-liberal agenda.
-
Just want to say I'm agreeing very much with both Jeremy and Jak.
Including about Starbucks coffee. Give me Costa any day even if it doesn't have comfy sofas.