Surely you are aware that Corporation tax is set at different levels in each country? Some countries have chosen to set CorpTax at a lower level, and as a result they have attracted a lot of large companies into shifting their corporate HQs, and a lot of their profits, into those countries. It is important for GB to be competitive in the 'market' by reducing CorpTax for large companies. Obviously that consideration does not apply in the case of small companies.
A very interesting point. This is one of the things that globalisation has done. Not only encouraged trade, but reduced everything to the lowest common denominator. Goods are produced where wages and living standards are lowest. Now we are saying that companies will also up and move to where corporation tax is lowest. No one will take on the bankers for fear that they will just set up shop in the Cayman Islands. The Swiss have attracted, and continue to do so, many corporations with very low levels of taxation. The spin off from this locally has been that huge numbers of ex-pats are imported, who rarely speak the local language to any degree. They bring their spouses with them and educate their kids in English language private schools. The companies employ few locals in highly paid jobs. They get tax waivers. The well-paid expats fill the motorways and trains to bursting point and push up house prices and rents to obscene levels, pricing many locals out of the market. Yes, they are probably good news for the local garages and dealerships, but it is debatable just how good a news this policy really is for the quality of life in the areas the companies have moved to. The blue chip company I worked for had its various brands operated out of some different countries for tax purposes - Holland, Ireland, the States. It is now rumoured that they might, if things did not turn out to their liking, just move their central operations to Singapore. Equally though, it is iniquitous that small business people should be contributing to tax to a far greater degree than the multi-billion £ giants. There should be some sort of international cooperation and regulation, but there is fat chance of that ever happening. Corporations have just become too powerful for the public good.
Well, yes and no. It's basically a major philosophical shift, so it's not just a question of amounts, it's about the whole basis of personal taxation. Under such a scheme, indeed, you would be encouraged to stop buying carbon bling for the bike and to put the money into saving for old age. It would give people far more personal choices. It would be very difficult under such a scheme to know what discretionary spending would be and thus to compute tax revenues, to begin with, so maybe it would have to be phased in, by say, reducing income tax and having a compensatory lowish level of "spending tax". But hey, I'm not here to work out the nuts and bolts. I just thought that the idea had a lot of mileage. It's fairer than blanket VAT, because there is so much stuff that you can't avoid buying and thus have to pay tax on. VAT doesn't hurt the rich much if at all (not that "hurting the rich" is an aim). What you are looking for is that people who can afford, and make the choice to, buy luxury fripperies, which ultimately do them no good (need to read the book to understand this) should be contributing through these choices, far more to the exchequer. Those who are managing their money carefully, or who are just caught in the trap of only making enough money to supply basic needs, would contribute a fair amount less. When most consumer goods are imported, this would only affect retailing. And who cares about Tesco? It also wouldn't violate trade agreements as there would be no punitive levels of VAT or import duties. But if you feel you have to change your TV every two years (or your bike...) then the public purse would benefit. The money's got to come from somewhere, after all. And you wouldn't be able to escape tax just by buying your goods cheaply abroad over the internet.
On that basis you are saying that corporations are running the country rather than the elected politicians, if this is true then that would be an immediate saving we can get rid of all of the politicians do away with elections. Think of all the vacant office space that would be created and the reduction in traffic.
Great idea , saving for old age.........except pensions and annuities have been decimated by the plunderers (IE State and their cronies - Banks).......so if you are lucky enough to have saved cash, that's fine, until you go into a care / nursing home......then if you have more than £23,500 approx, the State plunders it again......and if you are the only person owning your house, then they grab that as well. There's more to saving that meets the eye, so I fully understand why some people use every available legal method, no matter how morally wrong, to protect their assetts.....I know I bl**dy well would, after a lifetime of contributing Taxes, Nat Ins and 'labour' for the benefit of the State. That's one reason why my company is 'Limited' and not 'Sole Proprietor / Self Employed'....there is a distinct advantage to being 'Limited'. AL.
Agree with the bit about pensions and the State and their cronies but ................ If an old person with assets doesn't pay for their own care it means that someone else has to, aka the taxpayer. So why should the taxpayer stump up just so the old person can pass on their assets to their children. The State should only be there as a safety net for those who can't look after themselves, not as a lifestyle choice. The Law requires simplification in relation to tax and morally wrong loopholes should be closed.
+1 on that. People live longer these days. You have to plan for all the time you won't be working, and that means, if you have disposable income not spending all of it and expecting others to finance your cushy retirement. If there's something left over after that, so much the better. I've never expected to inherit anything worth having. I got a decent state education - I've always thought that it was up to me to finance myself.
Agreed with this......but it is a kick in the teeth when you have financed yourself (and the State) along come Social Services who try to grab it (usually unlawfully, if not illegally). AL.
This is a subject that is very relevant to me at the moment, seeing my modest inheritance being used to pay for my mother's care home needs is a small price to pay for not having to deal with Social Services (another bunch of people very good at looking after their own needs).
