Tory plans to rob from the poor and give to the rich. Again...

[beorhthelm]

Also, on earth do you stop Amazon trading here ? They trade on the internet. They could easily do what Play247 used to do and hold their stock offshore and post it in.

Amazon already do, they avoided VAT by being based in Luxemburg. they also avoid other tax by not actually reporting a profit to be taxed, but thats another issue.

 

[Triggaaar]

The problem is that they are getting away with not paying corporation tax, but do pay NI, and, via the workers, income tax. Is it better to keep unemployment down or lose the company? As you say, it's finding a workable way to collect it.

Amazon, Starbucks etc make a huge amount of money here, they're not going to leave if they have to start paying 20% on their profits. The rules that allow them to get away with declaring a zero profit seem to be international, and I don't know how we fix it. But there MUST be a way. I'm sure there are some accountants, lawyers, and tax advisers here that know a fair bit about it.

 

[Triggaaar]

Yes I know technically they do not owe money. But they ****ing do.

Indeed, but that subtle difference means we can't just tell them to pay or cease trading (we'd get sued and we'd lose). Thankfully we're not in Italy. Maybe start a separate thread asking the experts how we can change the rules to make these companies pay. If a company wants to sell goods in this country, they should have to agree to our rules on how they pay tax. I'm amazed there isn't a simple solution, but no party has ever said anything useful about it. They discussed it in that awful chat between Brand and Miliband, and Miliband just said they'd be tough and get them to pay, which is obviously nonsense (and the tories haven't offered anything better than that).

 

[Bozza]

Amazon, Starbucks etc make a huge amount of money here, they're not going to leave if they have to start paying 20% on their profits. The rules that allow them to get away with declaring a zero profit seem to be international, and I don't know how we fix it. But there MUST be a way. I'm sure there are some accountants, lawyers, and tax advisers here that know a fair bit about it.

That's it in a nutshell. Companies will manipulate where they make their profits, on a country by country basis, to maximise tax efficiencies.

In the case of Starbucks, profits in the UK have been kept low by channelling licensing royalties and similar to their Dutch associated company. However, it looks like the Dutch themselves have got things wrong by being too lenient on Starbucks, and are subject to investigation surrounding the matter.

 

[Nibble]

Its a shitty mess.

 

[Triggaaar]

That's it in a nutshell. Companies will manipulate where they make their profits, on a country by country basis, to maximise tax efficiencies.

In the case of Starbucks, profits in the UK have been kept low by channelling licensing royalties and similar to their Dutch associated company.

Indeed that is what they do. But we could change the rules so that they can't do that. It is obviously difficult, otherwise someone would have fixed it, but difficult is not impossible. And it would be a massive vote winner.

 

[Nibble]

Do you know I don't think it would be that much of a vote winner. I don't think the average person on the street gives it much thought.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Proposed by IDS and rejected by Cameron and Osbounre, this was all revealed in 2012. Shows desperation from the Liberals.

 

[Return of the Rev]

It's unbelievable really.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...xander-tory-plans-welfare-cuts-child-benefits

No plans to reign in billionaire tax cheats I see.

Seems sensible,if you are skint don't have loads of kids!

 

[surrey jim]

Whilst I support the thoughts to increase company taxation and reduce loopholes, companies are not going to stand by and allow profits to drop. They will increase prices accordingly.

 

[Triggaaar]

Do you know I don't think it would be that much of a vote winner. I don't think the average person on the street gives it much thought.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think they do. That's why Russell Brand was talking about it. We all pay tax and no one likes the fact that big companies like Starbucks don't bother.

Whilst I support the thoughts to increase company taxation and reduce loopholes, companies are not going to stand by and allow profits to drop. They will increase prices accordingly.

I disagree. Companies already price their goods to get maximum profit. If they put prices up, they'll sell less and make less profit.

 

[Codner pharmaceuticals]

Well, how else are they going to fund their stated intention to reduce the 45% income tax rate, to a far fairer 40%.
These millionaires are down on their uppers, you know

Is it fairer or would a lower rate of income tax actually bring in more revenue? This sounds counter-intuitive but raising top rates of income tax do not appear to raise more money. They are popular for those who like the politics of envy and wish to crush innovation and personal ambition but I feel a lower rate of tax say 35% would bring in more business, more wealthier people and raise more money.

The issue is that the top 1% of earners contribute nearly 1/3 of tax revenues. They can pay good accountants and they are often able to live in the country of their choice. They have legal ways to avoid paying tax on additional earnings.

When labour raised the rate to 50% declared earnings fell sharply and thus tax revenues fell (shooting themselves in the foot).

So I say simplify the whole system and let companies and bright individuals focus on generating more wealth rather than spending time working out systems to avoid paying too much tax.

You can read more of the theory here: http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-50p-top-rate-tax-bring/17601

 

[peterward]

The problem is that they are getting away with not paying corporation tax, but do pay NI, and, via the workers, income tax. Is it better to keep unemployment down or lose the company? As you say, it's finding a workable way to collect it.

Agreed, Close to 10,000 people have been made redundant after starbucks pulls out of the UK?........ they need to be tackled, they need to pay fairly but ultimatums are simplistic. to have 10,000 potentially on the dole may cost more. Starbucks/google tax revenue is money not in the coffers that absolutely should be, having thousands on the dole wont put that tax revenue in but it will take a hell of a lot from what is currently in the coffers. You can only work with what you actually have and not what you hope/think you should have.... They need to be pursued but kicking them out is not the answer.

 

[nwgull]

Just out of sheer interest, what happens to the thousands of people employed in this country by the likes of Starbucks if Starbucks called the bluff and went, OK, we're off ?

Also, on earth do you stop Amazon trading here ? They trade on the internet. They could easily do what Play247 used to do and hold their stock offshore and post it in.

They'd probably all get jobs at Costa coffee as they move in to plug the huge gap in the market left by Starbucks.

 

[narly101]

Any party which has those proposals in it's manifesto would get my vote. Why should I have to subsidise lower income families with shit loads of kids? My wife and I agreed to have 1 child, as we could afford keeping him in the manner in which he should be accustomed to. A 2nd child for us would negatively impact our lifestyle.

Cut your coat according to your cloth, and that should be the same for your family size.

 

[Nibble]

I would close them all down and bring back Lyons Corner Houses Much better than the slurry they serve up in Statbucks. The staff are all tossers anyway.

Check how beautiful this corner house is.

 

[nicko31]

They've made so many uncosted commitments the money has got to come from somewhere. This is just a tip of the iceberg.

 

[peterward]

There's no denying that part of the Tory package will be a load of as yet unspecified cuts in welfare. I'd be interested to hear [MENTION=15046]peterward[/MENTION]'s thoughts on what they might be, or what they should be.

Obviously without seeing spending costs/areas its pretty tough to answer that. The key is fairness. Those with the broadest shoulders etc. Nobody has a God given right to benefits, they should be there only for those in genuine need and nobody else and not as a lifestyle choice.

But its two pronged, if people are giving something up they currently have its wrong to then keep spending beyond our means as a country. Any reduction is a means to an end. To start spending tax payers money on public services and not on debt interest.

3 things i would do,

1) I would means test winter fuel allowance/bus passes for wealthier pensioners. And also pay state pensions on some sort of tapered scale. For instance an increased full state pension for those with a private pension less than 50K, and then a sliding scale between 50K to 100K and nothing above it. If your pension pot drops down below 100k you'll start to get tapered benefits. Same as child benefit works above 50K

Rich old Dames and Lords or those with massive 6 figure pension pots getting all the benefits is unfair. Whilst it is imperative to look after the elderly with dignity there are considerable wealthy enough pensioners, who would survive without government benefit. It doesn't wash to me to say benefit should only be a safety net for working age people and never a choice for those that can work but rich pensioners should be ring fenced, conversely those who retire poorest need all these state benefits, but those who don't need shouldnt get them.

2) The child benefit system - What is grossly unfair today is that if couple A has one partner that earns over 50K they start to lose benefit £1 for every £100 earned above 50K, even if second partner is out of work. If working partner earns over 60K and other nothing they get nothing with household income of 60K. If couple B has 2 working parents both earning 49K they get full benefit with household income of £98k, this is perverse it should be means tested on both parents v's savings etc, so those who need get and those who dont.

3) Cameron has said he wont raise NI, IT, or VAT (stupid mistake if the economy nosedives), but with all these talks of cutting this and that from Budgets. Legislate for the Adding of an additional 1% deficit reduction tax to be triggered as soon as the country starts to run a deficit, you'll soon realise which governing party has triggered the rise, it could be used as an insurance to protect against deficit which any responsible government would address. the fanstasy politics of Milliband and Sturgeon to keep on borrowing and forever kick the can down the road will always lead to ruin and increasing debt interest payments, with Austerity just around the corner. If you did the same in your own life, spending more than you earn with a range of loans and credit cards, the day of the Baillifs coming and the day when cutbacks must be made is inevitable.

for all this talk of cuts and austerity the real truth is one party is trying to bring the country within its means the other left parties plan more borrowing and to continue spending more than we earn, with la la land never ending deficit. Paying down the deficit means that instead of spending billions of tax payers money on debt interest payments to chinese investors who hold UK debt, we instead spend those billions on schools and hospitals and benefits, but you cant get to that place without hard choices today and we will be here all over again, and wasting billions more of our money in debt interest if Sturgeon and Millband get in.

What is worse?, depriving some means tested parents/pensioners a little benefit or keep burying heads in sand and borrowing beyond our means, loading debt onto our children to pay back and keep paying each year more in debt intersst to all those who invest in UK debt bonds than we send on the education of UK kids + UK defense budget combined. Asking the next generation to pay tomorrow for what we eat today, is the most perverse thing that's packaged up as ending Austerity or Tory cuts.

 

[Nibble]

Any party which has those proposals in it's manifesto would get my vote. Why should I have to subsidise lower income families with shit loads of kids? My wife and I agreed to have 1 child, as we could afford keeping him in the manner in which he should be accustomed to. A 2nd child for us would negatively impact our lifestyle.

Cut your coat according to your cloth, and that should be the same for your family size.

Hard not to agree.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

1) I would means test winter fuel allowance/bus passes for wealthier pensioners. And also pay state pensions on some sort of tapered scale. For instance an increased full state pension for those with a private pension less than 50K, and then a sliding scale between 50K to 100K and nothing above it. If your pension pot drops down below 100k you'll start to get tapered benefits. Same as child benefit works above 50K

Rich old Dames and Lords or those with massive 6 figure pension pots getting all the benefits is unfair. Whilst it is imperative to look after the elderly with dignity there are considerable wealthy enough pensioners, who would survive without government benefit. It doesn't wash to me to say benefit should only be a safety net for working age people and never a choice for those that can work but rich pensioners should be ring fenced, conversely those who retire poorest need all these state benefits, but those who don't need shouldnt get them.

Bus passes only cost something when they are actually used. The bus company claims from the local council. Do you really want to employ loads of administrators to means test something that the rich don't even use? When did you last see Dames & Lords on public transport?