| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? 11:40 - Nov 6 with 29613 views | ladyjack |
Anyone voting Conservative must be mad and or selfish, the majority of people are politically illiterate due to a lack of interest in politics and that many people are selfish and that lots are brainwashed by the media and press but anyone voting Conservative will be helping to continue doing lasting damage to the country and i'm a so called Welsh nationalist where in a perverse way a Conservative majority would be the best possible result in helping to break up the UK so that an independent Wales would then have the opportunity of voting in a party that distributes wealth more equally, I wouldn't want to see even more and more extreme right wing policies enforced on the people. |  | | |  |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 22:01 - Nov 8 with 1664 views | Fireboy2 |
Its great coming on and not reading the fantasy sh!t that the scumdiff cvnt spouts.
You should all try it, or the mods should ban him and delete his account. |  | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 23:26 - Nov 8 with 1601 views | majorraglan |
Lots of good points made on this thread.
My personal take is that the system needs a huge overhaul and that everyone should pay a fair share of tax. People who choose not to work because they don’t want to should work for the dole, people who can’t work should be supported. Workers at the bottom of the pile should pay less tax in an attempt to incentivise work, the middle should also pay a fair share of tax as should the wealthy. Businesses and companies should be in the same boat, the likes of Apple, Google, Amazon should pay tax on their profits in the U.K. ugh as any other business few, if they chose to try and avoid paying tax here then tax their turnover, maybe some of the tax they pay could be used to lower business rates of companies on the High Street who are being undercut by them. |  | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 12:09 - Nov 9 with 1532 views | bluey_the_blue |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 23:26 - Nov 8 by majorraglan |
Lots of good points made on this thread.
My personal take is that the system needs a huge overhaul and that everyone should pay a fair share of tax. People who choose not to work because they don’t want to should work for the dole, people who can’t work should be supported. Workers at the bottom of the pile should pay less tax in an attempt to incentivise work, the middle should also pay a fair share of tax as should the wealthy. Businesses and companies should be in the same boat, the likes of Apple, Google, Amazon should pay tax on their profits in the U.K. ugh as any other business few, if they chose to try and avoid paying tax here then tax their turnover, maybe some of the tax they pay could be used to lower business rates of companies on the High Street who are being undercut by them. |
Tax turnover? Good grief.
I agree the tax system needs an overhaul, it's too unwieldy and complex leading to loopholes. HMRC also need to be reined in, as given carte blanche to make deals, given carte blanche to take the piss when they believe they can do so.
I disagree about businesses, they are an easy target. Businesses employ people, increase income in communities. Think all those companies that went to Ireland due to low corp tax, rescuing the Irish economy, did so because they like drinking Guinness? [Post edited 9 Nov 2019 12:11]
| | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 12:46 - Nov 9 with 1489 views | longlostjack |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 12:09 - Nov 9 by bluey_the_blue |
Tax turnover? Good grief.
I agree the tax system needs an overhaul, it's too unwieldy and complex leading to loopholes. HMRC also need to be reined in, as given carte blanche to make deals, given carte blanche to take the piss when they believe they can do so.
I disagree about businesses, they are an easy target. Businesses employ people, increase income in communities. Think all those companies that went to Ireland due to low corp tax, rescuing the Irish economy, did so because they like drinking Guinness? [Post edited 9 Nov 2019 12:11]
|
What about the principle of fair competition? Why should a small bookshop have to pay a far higher rate of tax than Amazon? The suggestion of taxing turnover in the country that it’s generated in is a perfectly reasonable one. [Post edited 9 Nov 2019 12:51]
|  |
| |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 13:47 - Nov 9 with 1467 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 12:46 - Nov 9 by longlostjack |
What about the principle of fair competition? Why should a small bookshop have to pay a far higher rate of tax than Amazon? The suggestion of taxing turnover in the country that it’s generated in is a perfectly reasonable one. [Post edited 9 Nov 2019 12:51]
|
Taxing turnover would be madness. It would be a disincentive to plough back profits into expanding the business and would therefore stifle business growth and job creation. Small businesses in particular would be hammered. |  |
| |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 13:54 - Nov 9 with 1457 views | bluey_the_blue |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 13:47 - Nov 9 by Joe_bradshaw |
Taxing turnover would be madness. It would be a disincentive to plough back profits into expanding the business and would therefore stifle business growth and job creation. Small businesses in particular would be hammered. |
Indeed.
Company pension contributions lessen profit. Why would any company taxed on turnover seek to pay anything other than bare minimum?
Training lessens profit. Plenty of companies offer training for skills tangentially related. Why would they continue to do that? | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:02 - Nov 9 with 1424 views | DJack |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 13:47 - Nov 9 by Joe_bradshaw |
Taxing turnover would be madness. It would be a disincentive to plough back profits into expanding the business and would therefore stifle business growth and job creation. Small businesses in particular would be hammered. |
Uparrowed you by mistake.
You could set different levels of tax on a band system and that would protect small businesses. Not perfect, will have flaws but no worse than the cluster we have now. |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:14 - Nov 9 with 1414 views | bluey_the_blue |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:02 - Nov 9 by DJack |
Uparrowed you by mistake.
You could set different levels of tax on a band system and that would protect small businesses. Not perfect, will have flaws but no worse than the cluster we have now. |
That's irrelevant, it's incredibly fvcking stupid to tax based upon turnover. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:19 - Nov 9 with 1407 views | DJack |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:14 - Nov 9 by bluey_the_blue |
That's irrelevant, it's incredibly fvcking stupid to tax based upon turnover. |
Only from an ideoligical viewpoint. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:28 - Nov 9 with 1396 views | bluey_the_blue |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:19 - Nov 9 by DJack |
Only from an ideoligical viewpoint. |
No, from a financial point of view.
Company X, started by someone in the UK, employs 1000 people. 36m turnover; profits are 6m. To simplify the point, let's consider only corporation tax which is what, 19%?
So, profits of 6m - Corp Tax due is £1,140,000.
Tax on turnover of £36m? Tax payable is thus £6,840,000.
Which, as you note, exceeds the actual profits.
When you consider profits are turnover minus what goes out, PAYE, NI and VAT? Those can't be avoided. Pension contributions over and above legal minimum standards? Candidate to go. Benefits? Candidate to go. Non essential training? Candidate to go.
Any more cuts? Oh yes, invest in automation, leading to job cuts.
Still, your plan with possibly gain a higher tax revenue. Can you tinker with tax rates? Sure but then again, lower those rates is a BAD THING as Labour keep telling us. Turn us into Singapore, see and let's conveniently ignore Singapore smoking UK in STEM education... | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:32 - Nov 9 with 1394 views | DJack |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:28 - Nov 9 by bluey_the_blue |
No, from a financial point of view.
Company X, started by someone in the UK, employs 1000 people. 36m turnover; profits are 6m. To simplify the point, let's consider only corporation tax which is what, 19%?
So, profits of 6m - Corp Tax due is £1,140,000.
Tax on turnover of £36m? Tax payable is thus £6,840,000.
Which, as you note, exceeds the actual profits.
When you consider profits are turnover minus what goes out, PAYE, NI and VAT? Those can't be avoided. Pension contributions over and above legal minimum standards? Candidate to go. Benefits? Candidate to go. Non essential training? Candidate to go.
Any more cuts? Oh yes, invest in automation, leading to job cuts.
Still, your plan with possibly gain a higher tax revenue. Can you tinker with tax rates? Sure but then again, lower those rates is a BAD THING as Labour keep telling us. Turn us into Singapore, see and let's conveniently ignore Singapore smoking UK in STEM education... |
So you base your argumrnts on what Corporation tax is now. If we change to a tax on turnover the levels will change and there will be many rules to take into account. If we move to taxation of turnover I can see other nations following and some harmonisation - there will still be dodgy shenanigans by companies but their scope will (hopefully) be reduced. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:42 - Nov 9 with 1385 views | bluey_the_blue |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:32 - Nov 9 by DJack |
So you base your argumrnts on what Corporation tax is now. If we change to a tax on turnover the levels will change and there will be many rules to take into account. If we move to taxation of turnover I can see other nations following and some harmonisation - there will still be dodgy shenanigans by companies but their scope will (hopefully) be reduced. |
I'm giving an example based upon Corp tax NOW to highlight the problems with taxing on turnover.
If you're saying corp tax levels need to be on turnover but gradated to factor in outgoings then you're left with a system that errm taxes on profits in all but name.
No nation will tax on turnover because it's a dumb idea. If adopted, it's a race to the bottom with regards to employee benefits. Enjoy the bare minimum pension, for example.
Now, ranting that all companies need to pay "fair" ( and please define "fair" ) tax just ignores the realities of life.
Take say an Amazon. Do they need to base a HQ in Britain? Not really, warehouses, distribution centres sure. Admin can be done anywhere. So what precisely would the turnover be in that case? Sales in Britain? Ok, their admin HQ covering UK can be based outside UK. Where is the sale conducted? In Britain, where you've used a PC to order something or an admin centre outside UK where order processed, details sent to distribution centres ( and yes, I know Amazon have UK presence, just humour me and picture the situation where they withdraw ).
That's why I rail against the tax system and HMRC because it is bloated, overly complex and fails to cover modern business.
I'm of the opinion it would be nice if companies paid full tax but have no real objection to those companies who boost the economy by mass employment of receiving tax breaks. Quid pro quo and all that. Amazon employ thousands; that money goes into local economies etc. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:52 - Nov 9 with 1371 views | DJack |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:42 - Nov 9 by bluey_the_blue |
I'm giving an example based upon Corp tax NOW to highlight the problems with taxing on turnover.
If you're saying corp tax levels need to be on turnover but gradated to factor in outgoings then you're left with a system that errm taxes on profits in all but name.
No nation will tax on turnover because it's a dumb idea. If adopted, it's a race to the bottom with regards to employee benefits. Enjoy the bare minimum pension, for example.
Now, ranting that all companies need to pay "fair" ( and please define "fair" ) tax just ignores the realities of life.
Take say an Amazon. Do they need to base a HQ in Britain? Not really, warehouses, distribution centres sure. Admin can be done anywhere. So what precisely would the turnover be in that case? Sales in Britain? Ok, their admin HQ covering UK can be based outside UK. Where is the sale conducted? In Britain, where you've used a PC to order something or an admin centre outside UK where order processed, details sent to distribution centres ( and yes, I know Amazon have UK presence, just humour me and picture the situation where they withdraw ).
That's why I rail against the tax system and HMRC because it is bloated, overly complex and fails to cover modern business.
I'm of the opinion it would be nice if companies paid full tax but have no real objection to those companies who boost the economy by mass employment of receiving tax breaks. Quid pro quo and all that. Amazon employ thousands; that money goes into local economies etc. |
I've not mentioned fair and as to your argument about a race to the bottom nobody has ever said that it is as simple as changing one law. Going back to the main point...the idea of taxing turnover is about cutting out some/most of the shennanigans of the cash rich mega-corporations. provisions can and should be made for companies of varying size/solvency. In practise it would also take a few years of adjustments to iron out the worst wrinkles but it is achievable. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:58 - Nov 9 with 1359 views | bluey_the_blue |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:52 - Nov 9 by DJack |
I've not mentioned fair and as to your argument about a race to the bottom nobody has ever said that it is as simple as changing one law. Going back to the main point...the idea of taxing turnover is about cutting out some/most of the shennanigans of the cash rich mega-corporations. provisions can and should be made for companies of varying size/solvency. In practise it would also take a few years of adjustments to iron out the worst wrinkles but it is achievable. |
You can only claim it's achievable if you know how to iron out those wrinkles. You don't - no-one does, which is which it's not done.
Since these mega corporations are such evil, money grabbers why do you think, faced with paying far higher tax that they would not cut employees, not cut employee benefits and liabilities?
Again, mega corps cannot always be looked at in isolation. Some manufacturers from overseas are pretty well engrained into local economies. Source from British local companies. Employ thousands of Brits, whose money gets spent local, stimulating local economies.
Those mega corps leave, going elsewhere with more favourable tax regimes, how would your plan stimulate those local economies hit, small businesses affected, bring in replacement jobs?
It's a nice idea from an ideological perspective but it's an incredibly flawed one. Again, the benefits of mega corps being in UK outweigh, imo, reduced tax liabilities.
EDIT: You want to factor in other things. That's already done by taxing on profits. [Post edited 9 Nov 2019 15:59]
| | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 16:03 - Nov 9 with 1354 views | bluey_the_blue |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:58 - Nov 9 by Catullus |
OK point taken but turnover was up and so were profits. As I said, although their profits were up, their tax bill was halved by around 50%. Can you defend that?
As for taxing turnover, it doesn't sound reasonable to me specially so if we are talking about simplifying the tax regime.
The law should simply be you pay X amount of tax on any profit generated in the UK and if you want to operate/trade in the UK you have to have a headquarters here from which your accounts are declared.
Part of the problem is that at the last major changes to the tax system the government involved people like PwC and KPMJ. Is it any surprise there are loopholes in the tax laws, the solicitors put them there on purpose and the government probably knew but hoped the plebs wouldn't notice, but it all came out and I'm sure I saw it on the news a few years back.
Maybe somebody more patient can prove me right or wrong but I'm not going searching for it now. The Swans are 1 up and it's half time which means it's coffee time! |
Ok, Amazon withdraw a UK centre. People then going to be blocked on geolocation?
The problem isn't PwC. The problem is something is only legal or illegal based upon court rulings. HMRC have their interpretation of tax related legislation. Accountants have their interpretation. Until tested in a court of law, neither is an absolute "truth". HMRC, as seen in endless IR35 cases they've lost ( at public expense ) play hard and fast with their interpretations, even contradiction themselves. "Use our CEST tool to determine IR35 status". Then admitted in court to not abiding by results of own tool. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 16:20 - Nov 9 with 1345 views | DJack |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:58 - Nov 9 by bluey_the_blue |
You can only claim it's achievable if you know how to iron out those wrinkles. You don't - no-one does, which is which it's not done.
Since these mega corporations are such evil, money grabbers why do you think, faced with paying far higher tax that they would not cut employees, not cut employee benefits and liabilities?
Again, mega corps cannot always be looked at in isolation. Some manufacturers from overseas are pretty well engrained into local economies. Source from British local companies. Employ thousands of Brits, whose money gets spent local, stimulating local economies.
Those mega corps leave, going elsewhere with more favourable tax regimes, how would your plan stimulate those local economies hit, small businesses affected, bring in replacement jobs?
It's a nice idea from an ideological perspective but it's an incredibly flawed one. Again, the benefits of mega corps being in UK outweigh, imo, reduced tax liabilities.
EDIT: You want to factor in other things. That's already done by taxing on profits. [Post edited 9 Nov 2019 15:59]
|
"Since these mega corporations are such evil, money grabbers why do you think, faced with paying far higher tax that they would not cut employees, not cut employee benefits and liabilities? "
Why do you keep posting things that I've not claimed?
Anyway, it's clear that you and I wil not agree and your posting history indicates that you only change your viewpoint to match the utterings of deranged Tories so I will leave it there. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 16:21 - Nov 9 with 1343 views | bluey_the_blue |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 16:20 - Nov 9 by DJack |
"Since these mega corporations are such evil, money grabbers why do you think, faced with paying far higher tax that they would not cut employees, not cut employee benefits and liabilities? "
Why do you keep posting things that I've not claimed?
Anyway, it's clear that you and I wil not agree and your posting history indicates that you only change your viewpoint to match the utterings of deranged Tories so I will leave it there. |
Was being facetious to make the point.
Could argue your view is that of deranged Corbyn fans but... no.
The fact is, taxing on turnover would never work. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 16:25 - Nov 9 with 1342 views | Catullus |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 16:03 - Nov 9 by bluey_the_blue |
Ok, Amazon withdraw a UK centre. People then going to be blocked on geolocation?
The problem isn't PwC. The problem is something is only legal or illegal based upon court rulings. HMRC have their interpretation of tax related legislation. Accountants have their interpretation. Until tested in a court of law, neither is an absolute "truth". HMRC, as seen in endless IR35 cases they've lost ( at public expense ) play hard and fast with their interpretations, even contradiction themselves. "Use our CEST tool to determine IR35 status". Then admitted in court to not abiding by results of own tool. |
The problem is all of it. Allowing corporate tax specialists to design tax law just stinks, allowing HMRC bosses to decide who can be let off tax bills just stinks, the whole system stinks.
If you owe less than £2000 to HMRC you can pay in instalments, owe more and you have to pay it all....isn't that backwards?
If you owe a few thousand and can't pay you get punished but owe millions and just arrange a cosy dinner with a HMRC bigwig and you can have the bill cancelled.
It stinks. | |
| |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 16:25 - Nov 9 with 1340 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 16:21 - Nov 9 by bluey_the_blue |
Was being facetious to make the point.
Could argue your view is that of deranged Corbyn fans but... no.
The fact is, taxing on turnover would never work. |
That’s an opinion not a fact. |  |
| |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 16:31 - Nov 9 with 1335 views | bluey_the_blue |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 16:25 - Nov 9 by Catullus |
The problem is all of it. Allowing corporate tax specialists to design tax law just stinks, allowing HMRC bosses to decide who can be let off tax bills just stinks, the whole system stinks.
If you owe less than £2000 to HMRC you can pay in instalments, owe more and you have to pay it all....isn't that backwards?
If you owe a few thousand and can't pay you get punished but owe millions and just arrange a cosy dinner with a HMRC bigwig and you can have the bill cancelled.
It stinks. |
Tax specialists should have input; they seem to have more fvcking clue than HMRC.
I can kind of understand the installments bit, it's about managing the risk of non-payment.
Again, with regards to larger companies I've no real problems because when you consider the jobs created - both direct and indirect, the effects of local economies etc then a friendly tax system provides more benefits to UK than the cost of losing millions of tax revenue from that company.
I certainly think HMRC needs a major reform and overhaul as it's unfit for purpose with regards to tax. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 17:18 - Nov 9 with 1304 views | Catullus |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 16:31 - Nov 9 by bluey_the_blue |
Tax specialists should have input; they seem to have more fvcking clue than HMRC.
I can kind of understand the installments bit, it's about managing the risk of non-payment.
Again, with regards to larger companies I've no real problems because when you consider the jobs created - both direct and indirect, the effects of local economies etc then a friendly tax system provides more benefits to UK than the cost of losing millions of tax revenue from that company.
I certainly think HMRC needs a major reform and overhaul as it's unfit for purpose with regards to tax. |
It's the corporate tax specialists who designed all the loopholes that they then use to help their clients legally avoid tax. Of course that could just be my opinion.
Managing the risk of non payment, doesn't making people with bigger bills pay it all up front increase the risk of them not paying or even having financial problems?
Your 3rd point raises so many issues that I just can't be bothered to say more than if any company is in a profitable sector but closes down and leaves it just creates an opportunity for another business. If Amazon left the UK somebody would step in because there's millions to be made. | |
| |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 17:41 - Nov 9 with 1287 views | bluey_the_blue |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 17:18 - Nov 9 by Catullus |
It's the corporate tax specialists who designed all the loopholes that they then use to help their clients legally avoid tax. Of course that could just be my opinion.
Managing the risk of non payment, doesn't making people with bigger bills pay it all up front increase the risk of them not paying or even having financial problems?
Your 3rd point raises so many issues that I just can't be bothered to say more than if any company is in a profitable sector but closes down and leaves it just creates an opportunity for another business. If Amazon left the UK somebody would step in because there's millions to be made. |
Most of the loopholes aren't designed tbh. They are just edge cases. Biggest example is the dramatic rise of online shopping over last decade - exposed existing rules as inadequate for changing circumstances.
RE: Risk of non payment, less than 2k, say arrangement made for £50 per month, then HMRC can more or less guarantee the amount will be paid, small business continues trading. For pretty large sums, well if a company runs up that amount of debt, there's little chance of repayment, so demand the lot. Those that can pay up great, if not, end up with company folding and seize what assets HMRC can.
Ok, Amazon leave UK. Who replaces them, for example? There's no real competition for Amazon. Small niche areas, sure. Manufacturing companies leave? Many local businesses are used to source materials. Thousands of jobs, direct and indirect. Massive impact there. [Post edited 9 Nov 2019 17:42]
| | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 17:55 - Nov 9 with 1278 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 17:41 - Nov 9 by bluey_the_blue |
Most of the loopholes aren't designed tbh. They are just edge cases. Biggest example is the dramatic rise of online shopping over last decade - exposed existing rules as inadequate for changing circumstances.
RE: Risk of non payment, less than 2k, say arrangement made for £50 per month, then HMRC can more or less guarantee the amount will be paid, small business continues trading. For pretty large sums, well if a company runs up that amount of debt, there's little chance of repayment, so demand the lot. Those that can pay up great, if not, end up with company folding and seize what assets HMRC can.
Ok, Amazon leave UK. Who replaces them, for example? There's no real competition for Amazon. Small niche areas, sure. Manufacturing companies leave? Many local businesses are used to source materials. Thousands of jobs, direct and indirect. Massive impact there. [Post edited 9 Nov 2019 17:42]
|
Actually a great deal of Amazon is mirrored on ebay. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
