Tory party rebels to be kicked out

[SirGalahad]

It can be said an infinite number of times, but it doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.
A nation's economy is not finite and not defined by the wealth/income of the residents. You do not have a fixed source of income from which to tax. The reality is you can increase the pool by attracting the business of your neighbours. That is basically the Irish economy. Denmark (IP taxes), Luxembourg (VAT) and to some degree the Netherlands ('European Hub") all source income which would be due to their neighbours. They are in effect taxing other economies through being more attractive.

If you want companies to buy in to the idea that workers should own shares, then bring back share save schemes, which were scrapped, I think by the last labour govt. In this model companies reduce their employers tax liability by allowing employees to buy discounted shares. Simples! but clearly not the Corbyn approach.

What is wrong? Taxing businesses?

You just supported Tax Havens. Now I better understand why you voted for Brexit.

When a country tax base is eroded what do you think it will do? Either countries work together to stamp it out or they will create new taxes.

If an economy is not finte we would not have scarcity - that's news to every economist that ever lived or will live.

 

[motorbiking]

Clearly I didn't say the global economy is not finite.

Fwiw - I do not care if we remain or leave the EU, I can see strengths and weaknesses of both options.

 

[SirGalahad]

Clearly I didn't say the global economy is not finite.

Fwiw - I do not care if we remain or leave the EU, I can see strengths and weaknesses of both options.

So now you are pointing out on a global level taxes should be considered - that's an argument for a supranational body to manage this.

 

[JohnD]

So now you are pointing out on a global level taxes should be considered - that's an argument for a supranational body to manage this.

Any tax-dodging billionaire who didn't want that could agitate for a country to resign from international organisations.

What sort of person would do that?

 

[motorbiking]

Nope - I'm challenging this:

How many times must it be said - if you don't want to tax businesses then taxes must fall on people - if it falls on people you can tax income, consumption or wealth.

If you don't want to tax people then say we must cut services. Then deal with that fall out.

As its is clearly wrong.

It is not A = B + C where A is UK tax income and B is tax from UK business and C is tax on UK people.

 

[JohnD]

What do you mean by "UK business?"

Do you, for example, mean a business operating in the UK, selling goods and services, in the UK, to people in the UK, receiving money and making a profit in the UK?

 

[SirGalahad]

Nope - I'm challenging this:



As its is clearly wrong.

It is not A = B + C where A is UK tax income and B is tax from UK business and C is tax on UK people.

This issue is called tax incidence and if we want to get into the nitty and gritty I suggest those who want to debate it, actually read about it first.

https://mru.org/courses/principles-...-affordable-care-act-health-insurance-mandate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

 

[SirGalahad]

What do you mean by "UK business?"

Do you, for example, mean a business operating in the UK, selling goods and services, in the UK, to people in the UK, receiving money and making a profit in the UK?

He is mixing his concepts and ideas up.

 

[motorbiking]

What do you mean by "UK business?"

Do you, for example, mean a business operating in the UK, selling goods and services, in the UK, to people in the UK, receiving money and making a profit in the UK?

businesses subject to UK corporation tax.

He is mixing his concepts and ideas up.

just correcting your incorrect position that in order to maintain A and reduce B you must increase C, none of those links are relevant to the point that it is incorrect to say if you reduce Business tax, you must increase income tax to maintain revenue.

This reductio ad ridiculum is pointless in progressing an argument - Nobody is arguing for zero business tax. I'm pointing out that you can reduce 1 without increasing the other.

 

[JohnD]

businesses subject to UK corporation tax.

Oh right. So you're assuming that billionaire and multinational tax-dodgers pay nothing.

 

[motorbiking]

why do you think that?

 

[SirGalahad]

businesses subject to UK corporation tax.

just correcting your incorrect position that in order to maintain A and reduce B you must increase C, none of those links are relevant to the point that it is incorrect to say if you reduce Business tax, you must increase income tax to maintain revenue.

This reductio ad ridiculum is pointless in progressing an argument - Nobody is arguing for zero business tax. I'm pointing out that you can reduce 1 without increasing the other.

This is getting to the realms of absurdity.

You are arguing that you can maintain total tax take by reducing taxes on one actor (business ) but not increase it elsewhere. Absurd.

Because your arguing the system is not bound by those constraints. So we can tax where we do not have jurisdiction?

I think your argument is a country can draw income from abroad which then can be taxed. But that money has to first enter the country.

Thats Brexitnomics.

 

[motorbiking]

Delete absurd and brexitnomics and you have it in a nutshell. But its broader than pulling in taxes being paid elsewhere, there is an economic stimulus argument.
Look at all these schemes: http://www.greatbusiness.gov.uk/tax-relief-and-incentives-for-businesses-and-investors/

Do you think the aim was to reduce overall revenue or did the creator realise that these breaks would create an overall revenue benefit. Oh hang on, that's absurd brexitnomics surely

 

[durhamplumber]

Any tax-dodging billionaire

What sort of person would do that?

I would think ..all of them.of course,except you .who would be gaggin to pay as much tax as possible...Oh...and Notchy,,who could never lie.

 

[Notch7]

re, there is an economic stimulus argument

Of course such schemes are a good way to help business.

But the Torys have cut corporation tax continuously and argue that lowering it increases revenue.

There is an argument for low taxation on business to increase businesses moving to the UK, but that model isnt a guarantee of increase in revenue.

BBC article:
So since 2010 there have been examples of revenue rising following a corporation tax cut, although the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says that the amount raised would have been higher still if the cuts had not been made.

Let's look at another example - the 2007 Budget announced that the main rate of corporation tax would fall from 30% to 28% from April 2008
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48885496

Public services have been cut to such an amount we are seeing serious issues in police, housing, councild going bust, schools having to shut on friday afternoon.

And to fund those services properly, tax has to come from somewhere.

Does lowering corporation help or does it just mean more profits to shareholders or disappear into tax havens -I dont know the answer, but it must be considered.

You might complain about higher taxes at the top, but we should focus on reducing inequality. This government has caused misery to people at the bottom, there are now millions with in work poverty, people with fuel poverty. Schoolchildren going hungry in the summer hols.

Those things arent right are they?
I believe in government being pro business, pro incentivising people to start and grow businesses, but we cant continue with this crisis.