[DaveO]

Re: Housing : Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:01 pm  

Dally wrote:

Well its then up to HMRC to police the transfer-pricing legislation better. It's also up to legislators to show some urgency in modernising the tax system to cope better with international trade.

That is obviously true. However without things like country-by-country reporting which we don't have yet (it looks like it is coming) the government can't draft laws that HMRC can enforce to make sure tax is paid on profit earned here.

It is modernising the legislation and getting things like country-by-country reporting in place that will give the government and HMRC the tools it needs to extract the correct % of tax from businesses and reduce avoidance, not knocking a couple of % off the rate in the hope companies cease tactics like transfer pricing.

Re: Housing : Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:15 pm  

DaveO wrote:

It is ironic you chose BP as an example. They oppose one of the fundamental accounting reforms that would permit the correct level of corporation tax to be paid. Country-by-country reporting.

Why do you think they oppose it? Because corporation tax rate is too high?

No, because being able to post consolidated accounts that hide intra-group trades is a key way of avoiding the tax and they will want to keep doing that whatever the corporation tax rate is .

They will want to avoid country-by-country reporting whatever the corporate tax rate is because while they no doubt pay some corporation tax here they will, like any international company, be using intra-company trades to minimise it.

It's ironic by the way because the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has led the US government to want to regulate the extraction industry more and one aspect of that was country-by-country reporting so they could tell just what an extraction company operating in the US was earning in the US.

Only on some right wing fantasy Island. It's like the trickle down effect. Pure fantasy.

The idea lowering the corporation tax rate will reduce avoidance is ridiculous. If tax can be avoided it will be whatever the rate.

If you want to argue that lower taxes increase the tax take as we see mentioned by various right wing politicians and economists from time to time that is a different debate than one specially about corporation tax.

I'd also be interested to know what you think about the possibly of an independent Scotland undercutting the rest of the UK's corporation tax rate. It would be very easy for Whitbread who own Costa who do pay corporation tax here (unlile Starbucks) to move north of the border and deny us their corporation tax for example.

Nice swerve - you still haven't answered the point put to you by two separate poster - why is it that if tax can be minimised to none that global companies still pay any tax at all? As you said why pay any tax if you can pay none? BP are paying taxes in the billions strange thing to do if you don't have to pay any?

The government have demonstrated that lower the top rate of income tax actually increased take and often increasing taxation has a negative impact on take - so again this is not fantasy it is reality.

Re: Housing : Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:42 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Nice swerve - you still haven't answered the point put to you by two separate poster - why is it that if tax can be minimised to none that global companies still pay any tax at all? As you said why pay any tax if you can pay none? BP are paying taxes in the billions strange thing to do if you don't have to pay any?

Strange as it may seem, some companies, even global ones, do seem to operate with a sense of social justice

Sal Paradise wrote:

The government have demonstrated that lower the top rate of income tax actually increased take and often increasing taxation has a negative impact on take - so again this is not fantasy it is reality.

They have?

Where, when?

Re: Housing : Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:56 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

They have?

Where, when?

The tax take did go up when the 50% rate was reduced to 45% but that was because high earners deferred taking their bonuses until the new rate kicked in! Will be interesting to see if it increases the tax from now on.

Re: Housing : Tue Dec 10, 2013 10:26 pm  

Dally wrote:

The tax take did go up when the 50% rate was reduced to 45% but that was because high earners deferred taking their bonuses until the new rate kicked in! Will be interesting to see if it increases the tax from now on.

I know that. I'm also aware that the 50% rate was only in force for one year and the spivs who deferred taking bonuses until after the rate dropped to 45% also brought forward bonuses to take advantage of the 40% rate before it increased to 50%.

My question was aimed at the simpleton who made the claim that lowering taxes increases the tax take

[DaveO]

Re: Housing : Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:37 am  

Sal Paradise wrote: Nice swerve - you still haven't answered the point put to you by two separate poster - why is it that if tax can be minimised to none that global companies still pay any tax at all? As you said why pay any tax if you can pay none? BP are paying taxes in the billions strange thing to do if you don't have to pay any? Well its pretty obvious some companies indulge in aggressive avoidance and some do not. Those not as aggressive will still be at it to a degree. If you think the consolidated accounting of group profit that determines how much tax BP pay here isn't being reduced by transfer pricing or other avoidance measures I think you would be wrong. Either way it has nothing to do with the corporate tax rate and the fact you seem to think they pay their full whack rather undermines your argument it should be reduced. Why reduce it if the likes of BP pay up? The government have demonstrated that lower the top rate of income tax actually increased take and often increasing taxation has a negative impact on take - so again this is not fantasy it is reality. No they have not. This tells you why. http://fullfact.org/factchecks/labour_50p_tax_rate_millionaires_leave_country-28645 What also happened was the reverse effect of the forestalling mentioned in the link above when the current govt announced it was going to drop the top rate. Instead of forestalling people deferred incomes so they were not taxed on it until after the rate went down. So having deferred it the tax revenue took a jump in the year they elected to pay up as they declared more taxable income that year than when the 50p rate was in force. So people elected to be taxed in 2009-10 tax year on projected liabilities for 2010-11 when they would have got hit with the new 50p rate. Then in 2011-12 when it was in force they deferred income because they were told it going to drop. Net result? Tax revenue in 2009-10 and 2012-13 jumps in net terms compared to the period the 50p rate was in force. Had the 50p rate remained in force the effects of forestalling and deferring income would have disappeared. What that means it was not a reduction the rate that caused a jump in tax revenue due to some ludicrous notion all these high earners were suddenly spurred onto ever greater entrepreneurial effort or all rushed back to the UK having up sticks and left. It happened because our idiotic governments (plural) announced the changes in advance allowing people to indulge in tax avoidance. And yes the Labour govt was stupid not to realise announcing the increase to 50p in advance would would result in forestalling. My cynical view is the Tories didn't make a similar mistake by announcing the reduction in advance. The tip off was deliberate. Both governments lost out on tax revenue by allowing individuals to declare taxable income when it suited them by giving them ample warning. Incompetence or deliberate policy? The fact the Tories claim it is proof a lower rate increases revenue is clearly an outright lie as it ignores these factors. Now they will spin it the way they do because they are happy to peddle such misinformation but what about you? Is that what you are doing or did you just swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker?

Sal Paradise wrote: Nice swerve - you still haven't answered the point put to you by two separate poster - why is it that if tax can be minimised to none that global companies still pay any tax at all? As you said why pay any tax if you can pay none? BP are paying taxes in the billions strange thing to do if you don't have to pay any? Well its pretty obvious some companies indulge in aggressive avoidance and some do not. Those not as aggressive will still be at it to a degree. If you think the consolidated accounting of group profit that determines how much tax BP pay here isn't being reduced by transfer pricing or other avoidance measures I think you would be wrong. Either way it has nothing to do with the corporate tax rate and the fact you seem to think they pay their full whack rather undermines your argument it should be reduced. Why reduce it if the likes of BP pay up? The government have demonstrated that lower the top rate of income tax actually increased take and often increasing taxation has a negative impact on take - so again this is not fantasy it is reality. No they have not. This tells you why. http://fullfact.org/factchecks/labour_50p_tax_rate_millionaires_leave_country-28645 What also happened was the reverse effect of the forestalling mentioned in the link above when the current govt announced it was going to drop the top rate. Instead of forestalling people deferred incomes so they were not taxed on it until after the rate went down. So having deferred it the tax revenue took a jump in the year they elected to pay up as they declared more taxable income that year than when the 50p rate was in force. So people elected to be taxed in 2009-10 tax year on projected liabilities for 2010-11 when they would have got hit with the new 50p rate. Then in 2011-12 when it was in force they deferred income because they were told it going to drop. Net result? Tax revenue in 2009-10 and 2012-13 jumps in net terms compared to the period the 50p rate was in force. Had the 50p rate remained in force the effects of forestalling and deferring income would have disappeared. What that means it was not a reduction the rate that caused a jump in tax revenue due to some ludicrous notion all these high earners were suddenly spurred onto ever greater entrepreneurial effort or all rushed back to the UK having up sticks and left. It happened because our idiotic governments (plural) announced the changes in advance allowing people to indulge in tax avoidance. And yes the Labour govt was stupid not to realise announcing the increase to 50p in advance would would result in forestalling. My cynical view is the Tories didn't make a similar mistake by announcing the reduction in advance. The tip off was deliberate. Both governments lost out on tax revenue by allowing individuals to declare taxable income when it suited them by giving them ample warning. Incompetence or deliberate policy? The fact the Tories claim it is proof a lower rate increases revenue is clearly an outright lie as it ignores these factors. Now they will spin it the way they do because they are happy to peddle such misinformation but what about you? Is that what you are doing or did you just swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker?

Re: Housing : Wed Dec 11, 2013 10:29 am  

DaveO wrote: Well its pretty obvious some companies indulge in aggressive avoidance and some do not. Those not as aggressive will still be at it to a degree. If you think the consolidated accounting of group profit that determines how much tax BP pay here isn't being reduced by transfer pricing or other avoidance measures I think you would be wrong. Either way it has nothing to do with the corporate tax rate and the fact you seem to think they pay their full whack rather undermines your argument it should be reduced. Why reduce it if the likes of BP pay up? No they have not. This tells you why. http://fullfact.org/factchecks/labour_50p_tax_rate_millionaires_leave_country-28645 What also happened was the reverse effect of the forestalling mentioned in the link above when the current govt announced it was going to drop the top rate. Instead of forestalling people deferred incomes so they were not taxed on it until after the rate went down. So having deferred it the tax revenue took a jump in the year they elected to pay up as they declared more taxable income that year than when the 50p rate was in force. So people elected to be taxed in 2009-10 tax year on projected liabilities for 2010-11 when they would have got hit with the new 50p rate. Then in 2011-12 when it was in force they deferred income because they were told it going to drop. Net result? Tax revenue in 2009-10 and 2012-13 jumps in net terms compared to the period the 50p rate was in force. Had the 50p rate remained in force the effects of forestalling and deferring income would have disappeared. What that means it was not a reduction the rate that caused a jump in tax revenue due to some ludicrous notion all these high earners were suddenly spurred onto ever greater entrepreneurial effort or all rushed back to the UK having up sticks and left. It happened because our idiotic governments (plural) announced the changes in advance allowing people to indulge in tax avoidance. And yes the Labour govt was stupid not to realise announcing the increase to 50p in advance would would result in forestalling. My cynical view is the Tories didn't make a similar mistake by announcing the reduction in advance. The tip off was deliberate. Both governments lost out on tax revenue by allowing individuals to declare taxable income when it suited them by giving them ample warning. Incompetence or deliberate policy? The fact the Tories claim it is proof a lower rate increases revenue is clearly an outright lie as it ignores these factors. Now they will spin it the way they do because they are happy to peddle such misinformation but what about you? Is that what you are doing or did you just swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker? Point 1 you admit some companies will pay tax at reasonable rates - BP paid 12bn in 2012 - even though they have the option to relocate to a zero tax environment? Second point you also admit that the tax take has increased - for whatever reason. That is all that was required - no need for all the fog-knitting

DaveO wrote: Well its pretty obvious some companies indulge in aggressive avoidance and some do not. Those not as aggressive will still be at it to a degree. If you think the consolidated accounting of group profit that determines how much tax BP pay here isn't being reduced by transfer pricing or other avoidance measures I think you would be wrong. Either way it has nothing to do with the corporate tax rate and the fact you seem to think they pay their full whack rather undermines your argument it should be reduced. Why reduce it if the likes of BP pay up? No they have not. This tells you why. http://fullfact.org/factchecks/labour_50p_tax_rate_millionaires_leave_country-28645 What also happened was the reverse effect of the forestalling mentioned in the link above when the current govt announced it was going to drop the top rate. Instead of forestalling people deferred incomes so they were not taxed on it until after the rate went down. So having deferred it the tax revenue took a jump in the year they elected to pay up as they declared more taxable income that year than when the 50p rate was in force. So people elected to be taxed in 2009-10 tax year on projected liabilities for 2010-11 when they would have got hit with the new 50p rate. Then in 2011-12 when it was in force they deferred income because they were told it going to drop. Net result? Tax revenue in 2009-10 and 2012-13 jumps in net terms compared to the period the 50p rate was in force. Had the 50p rate remained in force the effects of forestalling and deferring income would have disappeared. What that means it was not a reduction the rate that caused a jump in tax revenue due to some ludicrous notion all these high earners were suddenly spurred onto ever greater entrepreneurial effort or all rushed back to the UK having up sticks and left. It happened because our idiotic governments (plural) announced the changes in advance allowing people to indulge in tax avoidance. And yes the Labour govt was stupid not to realise announcing the increase to 50p in advance would would result in forestalling. My cynical view is the Tories didn't make a similar mistake by announcing the reduction in advance. The tip off was deliberate. Both governments lost out on tax revenue by allowing individuals to declare taxable income when it suited them by giving them ample warning. Incompetence or deliberate policy? The fact the Tories claim it is proof a lower rate increases revenue is clearly an outright lie as it ignores these factors. Now they will spin it the way they do because they are happy to peddle such misinformation but what about you? Is that what you are doing or did you just swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker? Point 1 you admit some companies will pay tax at reasonable rates - BP paid 12bn in 2012 - even though they have the option to relocate to a zero tax environment? Second point you also admit that the tax take has increased - for whatever reason. That is all that was required - no need for all the fog-knitting

Re: Housing : Wed Dec 11, 2013 10:33 am  

cod'ead wrote:

I know that. I'm also aware that the 50% rate was only in force for one year and the spivs who deferred taking bonuses until after the rate dropped to 45% also brought forward bonuses to take advantage of the 40% rate before it increased to 50%.

My question was aimed at the simpleton who made the claim that lowering taxes increases the tax take

The same simpleton that crushed your argument regarding the bottom quantile!!

So do you think if they lowered the tax on petrol the take would increase or decrease? Do you think if they lowered the tax on cigerettes the take would increase or decrease.

Re: Housing : Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:49 am  

cod'ead wrote:

I know that. I'm also aware that the 50% rate was only in force for one year and the spivs who deferred taking bonuses until after the rate dropped to 45% also brought forward bonuses to take advantage of the 40% rate before it increased to 50%.

My question was aimed at the simpleton who made the claim that lowering taxes increases the tax take

Hardly spivs. Most people would be propreitors of their own businesses. Governemts are manipulative. Labour started announcing rate rises in advance seemingly in order to accelerate receipts of tax.

Re: Housing : Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:57 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The same simpleton that crushed your argument regarding the bottom quantile!!

So do you think if they lowered the tax on petrol the take would increase or decrease? Do you think if they lowered the tax on cigerettes the take would increase or decrease.

Do you live in some right-wing fantasy land

You have yet to "crush" any argument of mine, apart from in your own imagination. And before you even attaempt to go any further, I suggest you look up the difference between 'centile' and 'quantile' (you can use wiki if you prefer).

Stop trying to compare apples with pears fool