No extra tax but I would chip in on things that were good for Britain.
I want a tidal power scheme in the Severn built by a British company never to be flogged off to anyone.
Anything that makes this country greener and more self reliant.

THM – You’re minted – you can pay mine too

If only stabiliser, if only!!

@binners – no one should beat Phillip Green to a pulp, he’s just following the rules. It’s the rules which are broken and need fixing. BTW I think the figures are £1bn dividend paid to his Monacco “resident” wife thus saving £300m in corporation tax had the dividend been paid in the UK.

A tax system that allows the present abuses to take place simply isn’t fit for purpose. But as the government (and the one before them) looked exclusively after the interests of the uber-rich and tax-dodging corporations (who’s boards they mysteriously later pop up on), there is absolutely no way things will change. We’ll just be expected to keep on subsidising them.

The fact that the government saw fit to give a tax-dodger like Phillip Green a job tells us everything you need to know about their attitude to the rich, or corporations, contributing to the society they operate in and profit from. They clearly think the status quo is just fine.

The fact that the government saw fit to give a tax-dodger like Phillip Green a job…

Isn’t that a little like employing a hacker?

I think it was Molgrips that said it’s not just about closing tax loopholes. Unfortunately here I agree with Osborne to a degree (which is something that never happens) when he says that the UK needs to be attractive as somewhere for multi-nationals to have offices / shops / factories (although he was primarily talking about banking). This could be to do with skillsets, expertise, geography – or – tax breaks.

Or to put it another way, why would Amazon invest in the UK if wages were too high for unskilled labour, postage was extortionate, they were taxed to high heaven and – ultimately – they weren’t making a profit?

Unfortunately governments are being held to ransom, to a certain degree.

I agree that the tax system isn’t perfect. But would you pay more to maintain the health and education of the country?

The thing is, you have to pander to the big companies to some extent. Otherwise they won’t want to come here.

The thing is, you have to pander to the big companies to some extent. Otherwise they won’t want to come here.

Agreed.

But where is the line the pandering should stop?

Lower tax rates = higher tax yields? You need to ask Ronald Reagan about that one.

I feel moderately strongly that a 40% top rate of income tax is plenty, when coupled with consumption taxes etc.

I’m perfectly happy to pay that, but I wince slightly at the idea of paying more.

The double edged sword is that those corporations employ all us poor saps who do pay the taxes

Or to put it another way, why would Amazon invest in the UK if wages were too high for unskilled labour, postage was extortionate, they were taxed to high heaven and – ultimately – they weren’t making a profit?

They don’t invest in the UK, they sell goods here, if they don’t want to sell in the UK then they are welcome to **** off. They will stay because they will continue to make huge profits. Same as starbucks and tesco, if they want to close there UK operations and ship off to China let them, and lets see how much money they make then. It is just lies to sugest everyone would leave without the tax breaks, especially when talking about retail operations. It is using fear to con everyone.

Anyway, despite the obvious flaws of the current tax regime, I would pay more to improve education and health care, some things are just worth more than selfish greed.

Inheritance tax is unjust while we are having moan.

But where is the line the pandering should stop?

That’s just it, isn’t it? Marx’s ideas fall down in a global market, when other countries are so much poorer.

It is just lies to sugest everyone would leave without the tax breaks

I’m not saying everyone would leave. But some people might, so the economy might take a bit of a dip. Then without so much money floating around our service based economy, those services might not do so well. So it becomes a bit less useful for some companies to be based here.. and so on – a downward spiral perhaps?

I’m only hypothesising of course, if anyone has a decent counter-hypothesis then I’m all ears.

Inheritance tax is unjust while we are having moan.

It’ll be a bold (perhaps suicidal) politician who stands up and says an extra 1p in the £ income tax specifically for education and healthcare as an election promise, I would take notice of them.

That’s certainly been one of the main planks of Labour in one General Election (shadow chancellor, late lamented John Smith, that didn’t end well) and LibDems IIRC more recently – I was happy to vote on that basis, not feeling the glow at the moment..

I’m only hypothesising of course, if anyone has a decent counter-hypothesis then I’m all ears.

well how about a better educated and healthier nation creates long term sustainable growth.

Isn’t that a little like employing a hacker?

Not at all. His advisory role was nothing to do with taxation. He was employed to suggest ways to take a hatchet to the public sector. The one they wouldn’t necessarily have to take a hatchet to if him and his ilk actually paid some tax.

I feel absolutely certain that the irony was completely lost on both him and Dave

zippykona – Member

Inheritance tax is unjust while we are having moan.

Another stealth tax …

well how about a better educated and healthier nation creates long term sustainable growth.

That’s just a different hypothesis, not a counter one. I want to know why companies wouldn’t leave if they weren’t given an easy ride by government.

You need to ask Ronald Reagan about that one.

I did. He had no memory of what I was talking about. 😉

Whole tax system is just crazy though, set of more and more complex rules. The more it’s tinkered with, the more complex it’s made, the easier and more attractive it is to weasel out of it (or indeed not know what is due, or can be reclaimed). Hordes of well-meaning, self-interest tiers of legislation.. Grr.

molgrips – Member

I’m not saying everyone would leave. But some people might, so the economy might take a bit of a dip.

If you assume that these companies are meeting a demand, then something else will fulfil that demand, just as something else filled it before they did.

Amazon are a challenging one, their corporate model is basically a growth engine, they bash their profit margins down to a minimum and use their size to undercut everything else. Good news if you want to buy a book for a pound, bad news if you’re a book shop. Because Amazon’s growth inevitably comes from weakening and killing other businesses.

You get into massive complexity with this, I can ask the questions but not answer them. Is Amazon better for the UK than all the other businesses it has supplanted or weakened? Do they create more jobs value than they suppress? (given that they replace shop workers with warehouse workers, essentially) Is the benefit to the public in terms of buying power greater than the cost to the public in job losses? Is there huge volume, low profit, low tax model more beneficial to the UK than a more distributed network of small volume, higher profit businesses? (ie does Amazon’s efficiency pay off)

I think tax breaks for companies is the lesser of two evils, the old way was to bung huge financial incentives at companies to set up, but they often backfired when the company uprooted to the next cheap place once the incentives ran out (e.g. LG plant outside Cardiff).

No I don’t want to pay more tax thanks. I pay enough as it is already.

As an aside I’d quite like to see the NHS broken up and run on a model more like the continent. Also reduce A&E waits, by getting GP surgeries to do more routine x-ray and ultrasound scans.

I want to know why companies wouldn’t leave if they weren’t given an easy ride by government.

Because they would still make lots of money here, their profits are not based on abusing the tax system, that is just a massive bonus to them.

4. I have no confidence that more tax will equal better services.
Precisely ! take more tax, hose it into the bottomless pit labelled Public Services and see public sector wages rise, pensions fatten, privately owned suppliers making a mint, etc, etc.
Its the lazy persons idea that collecting more tax is the answer to the world’s problems.
This shit is getting old, public sector nagging for more money, so as to improve services. Saying “Pay us more and we’ll make everyone happy“. Yeah, starting with yourselves.
Why are there still this minority of people who are hopelessly obsessed with increasing the tax take, almost as if they get their kicks from taking other peoples money from them.

I pay enough tax, thank you ! Find some other way of improving your services.

I don’t think that many people ever “want” to pay more taxes. I’m certainly a net contributor to society however if we could see clearer benefits to paying more tax I probably wouldn’t mind paying a little more.

Because they would still make lots of money here

But that’s presuming that moving their facilities abroad would limit them doing trade in the UK.

Whilst that may be easier for some companies than others (you can move your manufacture of products abroad instead of in the UK and just run your distribution and research here for example, like Dyson) but another solution for service companies is to incorporate the country in a lower tax regime country, like Amazon and Vodafone for example – which the government can’t prevent them doing due to EU rules.

Specifcally on Amazon I think it’s bad for UK business as they stand. Likewise CRC, Wiggle and the German bike online retailers. By all means they can exist but they should pay an online sales tax for all goods sold in the UK, by all means they can set this against UK corporation tax but if they chose to keep the majority of their employees and profits outside the UK then they can pay up. Online companies are killing our small businesses (eg bike shops) and create only low paid work or none at all.

Because they would still make lots of money here

Not as much – because if our economy had started to slide we’d have less to spend.

Its the lazy persons idea that collecting more tax is the answer to the world’s problems.

@Solo It’s idealistic, for sure. What alternatives would you suggest?

Likewise CRC, Wiggle and the German bike online retailers. By all means they can exist but they should pay an online sales tax for all goods sold in the UK, by all means they can set this against UK corporation tax but if they chose to keep the majority of their employees and profits outside the UK then they can pay up.

But isn’t this a problem generally with globalisation? And – in the UK – why companies such as Specsavers have their head office (and hence are tax registered) in Jersey or other tax havens?

Yes I would mind paying more tax – I pay enough as it is!

I’d like to see a more consumption based system – less income tax across the board, but a higher VAT on goods & services purchased.

The increased “money in your pocket” each month should increase consumer confidence, and people then spend on goods & services, so net tax income is the same but with a greater sense of economic wellbeing in the population.

With regards the big companies – I can’t comment on all, but working for an SME invested into by Vodafone (taking us from 37 employees to 130+ in under 2 years), I’d suggest that maybe there should be some kind of tax breaks for big multinationals investing into innovative SMEs and then generating employment & growth. That would act as incentive to stay in the UK and help our economy stabilise and grow as a “making” economy again. Would they have invested without the tax savings from offshore etc? I don’t know, but if we made it more attractive to run investment programmes into the UK economy then it’s a good move IMO.

It’s only really Britain, the US and Germany that are perpetuating these dodgy tax havens; if the world bank and the IMF set about places like Guernsey, Bahamas, Lichtenstein then the movement of funds could provoke some real political change especially if there is whistleblowing activity when the money starts moving about

hmmmm

actually this could be the seed for a really good bond film…

It’s only really Britain, the US and Germany that are perpetuating these dodgy tax havens; if the world bank and the IMF set about places like Guernsey, Bahamas, Lichtenstein then the movement of funds could provoke some real political change especially if there is whistleblowing activity when the money starts moving about

I imagine the tin foil hat brigade will start shortly, saying the Bilderberg Group/Illuminati/Seb Blatter or something will put a stop to it though!!

@ed – what about Ireland ? That’s where Apple, Google etc are ? Singapore ? There is very a long list.

@pimpmaster – you are right in some regards which is why tax at the point of sale/delivery is probably the best way forward, its’ too easy to circumvent the current system

you are right in some regards which is why tax at the point of sale/delivery is probably the best way forward, its’ too easy to circumvent the current system

How would you get round online shopping? Tax on delivery?

less income tax across the board, but a higher VAT on goods & services purchased.

VAT is regressive – the poorest pay the same percentage of tax as the richest, which isn’t fair. You could tax luxury goods on a sliding scale of luxuriousness, but that’d be really hard to do.

I don’t think tax evasion is quite the issue we’re led to believe in the papers. It’s an issue, but the overwhelming majority of peope are still on PAYE, and still pay taxes. It’s only the super rich who can afford to mess about.

Massive simplification is required. I think there is huge merit in going as far as a flat rate combined with a tax threshold. Easy to understand and administer, cheaper to run and more effective and efficient, harder to dodge, and still progressive due to the threshold. It will never happen though.

VAT is regressive – the poorest pay the same percentage of tax as the richest, which isn’t fair. You could tax luxury goods on a sliding scale of luxuriousness, but that’d be really hard to do.

I don’t think tax evasion is quite the issue we’re led to believe in the papers. It’s an issue, but the overwhelming majority of peope are still on PAYE, and still pay taxes. It’s only the super rich who can afford to mess about.

@molgrips I agree on VAT being regressive (to a degree as food, housing, kids clothes are VAT free) but the fact is the current system isn’t working so everyone is worse off. Someone buying MTB parts online or stuff at Amazon is more likely to be middle class, I mean it’s not the poor buying essentials is it? What the online tax would do is reduce the advantage Amazon etc have and raise revenue and give small business a chance, maybe then the unemployed would have a better chance of getting a job. So not so regressive ?

We had luxury tax way back, 15% normal VAT and 25% luxury tax. It killed the UK boat building industry for example. It didn’t affect the rich as they bought their boat abroad but the normal boat buyer (who traditionally bought British) bought less. The rich can just buy their expensive items elsewhere. The people who lost out where the craftsmen. We used to have an extra 10% new car tax on top of VAT but they abolished that as it was seen to be counterproductive.

I think small scale tax evasion by small business and traders is rife and I suspect more in aggregate than tax schemes I referenced earlier.

How would you get round online shopping? Tax on delivery?

@pimpmaster – quite easy, it’s defined as UK purchase and thus liable for tax if 1) payment card is UK 2) delivery address is UK 3) IP address of purchaser is UK. Now you can try and circumvent these things but if a company was found to be doing so they get a stonking great fine (punitive damages the US calls it).