Low taxes

[bensherman]

[QUOTE=local;6796096][QUOTE=bensherman;6796091]

Hmm participated is an interesting choice of word,

but the reality is companies and individuals avoid basing themselves in high tax areas.

98 of the FTSE have operations to avoid tax.

Quite a few Southport "residents" are based in the I.O.M.

Worldwide from Amazon down, $3.4 billion in tax on its income so far this decade despite achieving revenues of $960.5 billion and profits of $26.8 billion.



I have never known any genuinely rich person or company that didn't plan their tax affairs to reduce it, or more accurately paid someone else to.

Not what I said.
Having decided their business strategy, then they look to mitigate tax.
Not the other way around.

[sandGroundZero]

Rishi Sunak

This thread begins with an observation about how prominent Conservative MPs are staking a claim to the party's leadership (as the PM's light fades) by enunciating "low taxes" as a "fundamental article of [Conservative party doctrinal] faith". That is, by reverting to what received wisdom supposes to be a fundamental Conservative tenet as distinct from the Labour party's (presumed) preference for 'fair taxes'. The thread digresses with exchanges asserting tax policy acts as a disincentive to commercial businesses formation and by extension with speculation about entrepreneurial motivation vis-à-vis tax structure.

…the reality is companies and individuals avoid basing themselves in high tax areas. | 98 of the FTSE have operations to avoid tax. | Quite a few Southport "residents" are based in the I.O.M.
Worldwide from Amazon down, $3.4 billion in tax on its income so far this decade despite achieving revenues of $960.5 billion and profits of $26.8 billion.
I have never known any genuinely rich person or company that didn't plan their tax affairs to reduce it, or more accurately paid someone else to.

The question is whether the parliamentary Conservative party tends generally to be two-faced with respect of a fair distribution of tax burdens. Much discussion focuses on levels and thresholds of income tax in the UK. The regressive nature of all taxes taken together is being systematically obscured. The original post asserts, "This is a seam Starmer should be mining."

[local]

The rather obvious but very un PC observation that the majority are supported by the minority is non too popular.

Don't we all want someone else to pay our bills, unfortunately, I have to pay, good luck to those who are net recipients?

We are back to what I christened Emma Raducana taxes, how much do you want off her?

It's not all "Tory Toffs and Industry Fat-cats" as some would have you believe.

[sandGroundZero]

Emma Raducanu

"The rather obvious but very un PC observation that the majority are supported by the minority is non too popular. | Don't we all want someone else to pay our bills, unfortunately, I have to pay, good luck to those who are net recipients? We are back to what I christened Emma Raducana taxes, how much do you want off her? It's not all "Tory Toffs and Industry Fat-cats" as some would have you believe."

Diverting attention from principles? How much tax highly paid professional athletes or indeed, "Tory Toffs and Industry Fat-cats" pay is an important, but distinct issue from the structure of the tax system and its built-in escape hatches!

[local]

Emma Raducanu

"The rather obvious but very un PC observation that the majority are supported by the minority is non too popular. | Don't we all want someone else to pay our bills, unfortunately, I have to pay, good luck to those who are net recipients? We are back to what I christened Emma Raducana taxes, how much do you want off her? It's not all "Tory Toffs and Industry Fat-cats" as some would have you believe."

Diverting attention from principles? How much tax highly paid professional athletes or indeed, "Tory Toffs and Industry Fat-cats" pay is an important, but distinct issue from the structure of the tax system and its built-in escape hatches!

And amongst those who use these "escape hatches" sportspeople, media and perhaps more interesting their sponsors.

Our tax system is geared for the high earners to pay for the low earners.

It is a distraction, the "problem" is too many are so badly payed.

The pie needs to be cut more fairly in the first place.

[The PNP]

And amongst those who use these "escape hatches" sportspeople, media and perhaps more interesting their sponsors.

Our tax system is geared for the high earners to pay for the low earners.

It is a distraction, the "problem" is too many are so badly payed.

The pie needs to be cut more fairly in the first place.

'Payed'?

Take five in the corner, boy - and don't forget to don that silly cap....
I.e. the one with a large 'D' on it, lol!

[sandGroundZero]

And amongst those who use these "escape hatches" sportspeople, media and perhaps more interesting their sponsors.
Our tax system is geared for the high earners to pay for the low earners. | It is a distraction, the "problem" is too many are so badly payed.
The pie needs to be cut more fairly in the first place.

As always local you prefer to deflect.
Of course a large proportion of employed people are paid badly. Broadly speaking the individuals (& corporate bodies) you like to cite "Gates,Bezos or Musk" & "Amazon" conspicuously exploit built-in features of UK legislation (as well of course, as American, European and other jurisdictions' gaps-by-design). Corporate entities, Amazon notorious among them, pay their workers poorly and otherwise exploit them thereby amassing wealth and influence!

So, relinquish your red herring habit and address the substantive points.

[local]

[QUOTE=bensherman;6796110][QUOTE=local;6796096]

Not what I said.
Having decided their business strategy, then they look to mitigate tax.
Not the other way around.

Or perhaps you didn't do quite as you say, when clearly where you base yourself and why is one of the most important strategic decisions to make.




The substantiation I provided was from 22 years consulting with a range of big and other growing, companies.

I participated frequently in their strategy and planning. I do not recall ONCE rates of personal or corporate taxation being factors.

Of course, if you ask someone paying higher rate tax , would he like to pay less, he will say yes. Claiming it discourages growth is a more respectable justification than "I'd like more money".

It is very simply the case that modest rises in the top rate would fund the social care and healthcare programmes.



Perhaps a bit of reading is in order for you;

The main reason behind choosing Ireland as headquarter is the low tax rate.

https://blog.ipleaders.in/google-headquartered-ireland/

[Stuartli]

'Payed'?

Take five in the corner, boy - and don't forget to don that silly cap....
I.e. the one with a large 'D' on it, lol!

Borrowing it temporarily from you then?

[The PNP]

Borrowing it temporarily from you then?

And not for the first time either, lol.

[sandGroundZero]

Nick Cohen

…a belief in neoliberal hegemony ducks the question whether it makes sense to think of today’s right as neoliberal. … None of [Boris Johnson's] personal corruptions, however, can hide the truth that Johnson is a nationalist, who appeals to deep chauvinist sentiments rather than class interests. No economic liberal, neo or otherwise, would pull the UK out of the world’s richest single market. … Far from being a spur to entrepreneurial dynamism, the Conservative party is the party of the people who have stopped working, rather than the party of businesses and their workers. Johnson and ministers stroke the prejudices of his core pensioner vote and put their economic interests first. I cannot imagine the ghost of Friedman applauding a government that raises taxes on employers and employees to protect the property of wealthy retirees. — Nick Cohen ex: theguardian.com

Mr. Cohen is not one of my favourite commentators, however, this warrants a read.

[bensherman]

[QUOTE=local;6796151][QUOTE=bensherman;6796110]

Or perhaps you didn't do quite as you say, when clearly where you base yourself and why is one of the most important strategic decisions to make.




The substantiation I provided was from 22 years consulting with a range of big and other growing, companies.

I participated frequently in their strategy and planning. I do not recall ONCE rates of personal or corporate taxation being factors.

Of course, if you ask someone paying higher rate tax , would he like to pay less, he will say yes. Claiming it discourages growth is a more respectable justification than "I'd like more money".

It is very simply the case that modest rises in the top rate would fund the social care and healthcare programmes.



Perhaps a bit of reading is in order for you;

The main reason behind choosing Ireland as headquarter is the low tax rate.

https://blog.ipleaders.in/google-headquartered-ireland/

When you consider the benefits of having a company relocate to your country, that is because of the jobs (therefore income Tax) created in both the employer and their suppliers. Hence how pleased we were when Honda, Toyota, Nissan, came here.
They were fundamentally attracted by being resident in the EU. That is an overwhelming attraction for a manufacturer. That is now gone, and was far, far more powerful than the corporate tax rate.
Ireland simply attracted "brass-plating" and made sweetheart deals with companies like Apple which it has had to scrap. Not many jobs accrued.
Dropping corporate taxes to attract something like that has the enormous disadvantage that you have to drop it too for the 98% of firms who are going nowhere.
In any event the recent G7 agreement to have a minimum rate subdues tax tourism considerably.

[local]

Borrowing it temporarily from you then?

I suppose for PNP he has hit such a brick wall for his eco-cons that he now "marks my homework" by way of retaliation.

Reminds me of my old mate Degsy.


He could be a site administrator I'm sure Seivad would appreciate the assistance.

Pyrrhic.

[bensherman]

[QUOTE=local;6796151][QUOTE=bensherman;6796110]

Or perhaps you didn't do quite as you say, when clearly where you base yourself and why is one of the most important strategic decisions to make.




The substantiation I provided was from 22 years consulting with a range of big and other growing, companies.

I participated frequently in their strategy and planning. I do not recall ONCE rates of personal or corporate taxation being factors.

Of course, if you ask someone paying higher rate tax , would he like to pay less, he will say yes. Claiming it discourages growth is a more respectable justification than "I'd like more money".

It is very simply the case that modest rises in the top rate would fund the social care and healthcare programmes.



Perhaps a bit of reading is in order for you;

The main reason behind choosing Ireland as headquarter is the low tax rate.

https://blog.ipleaders.in/google-headquartered-ireland/

My comment related to income and capital gains tax, not corporate tax.
The type of organisations who can brass-plate around the world are pretty few and far between.
In most cases if there is a genuine judgement call about where to operate, taxation rates will be very low on the list of where to go.
Shall I give you an example:
A firm I worked with between about 2002 and 2010. Based West London, specialist publishers. When I first knew them they had about 20 employees, and by 2010 about 200.
So how did they decide on location?
Proximity of clients
Access to skilled staff
Proximity of specialist support services
Premises
Ease of travel nationally, internationally
Home locations of the founders
Eventually they opened subsidiaries in Munich and Seattle.
Munich because of a key client and ease of trading across the EU
Seattle because of a key client (Microsoft)
At no time in that 8 years did corporate tax rates make the slightest difference.

[sandGroundZero]

Council Leader Ian Maher — ex: Southport Champion

Cllr. Ian Maher:
"Before the Budget statement in October, the Chancellor stated that there would be 'absolutely no return to austerity' and told us we would see 'very strong investment in public services.
"I am afraid that the latest funding settlement shows little evidence of the government investing strongly in public services, in Sefton at least.
"Instead, the Government has left us facing a position that remains austere and which will make our borough's economic recovery from Covid-19, when it does finally end, even more difficult.
"Through the pandemic, pressure on children services, special educational needs and adult services have risen to unprecedented levels on a national scale. This funding will not be enough for us to continue providing these people with the support they need in the longer term.
"While the Government will, no doubt, claim it is increasing funding for Sefton and other local councils, the burden continues to be passed to tax-payers. This means the borough's residents are paying for those increases out of their own pockets at the same time as they face rocketing household fuel bills and rising prices in the shops."

An effort to frame the never ending debate regarding 'who pays for public services; and how?', the Council Leader reiterates Councils' view that central government is shirking its share of the burden.

One thing is indisputable; the Council's revenue raising options — Council Tax, primarily, but other fees — are all highly regressive. Central government determines all the rules such that Councils are obliged to raise their revenues at the inordinate expense of the poorest while charged with statutory duties to assist these and other citizens in the provision of essential services.

Borough residents of middling income /wealth need to query the unbalanced and inequitable system rather than carp at the Council over their rates.