Of course Corbyn is seeking the job which involves pandering to Saudi and the Rodrigo Duterte. Have a read of Robin Cook’s book – even if you start out wanting an ethical foreign policy it doesn’t survive. In Cooks case it fell apart when 10,000 uk jobs in the same constituency relied on a sale of aircraft dashboards to Israel via the USA.

And the point being lots of people are very quick to judge his actions many years ago while ignoring what is going on today by members of the current government. It’s called double standards.

How do you square the current government pandering to Saudi and the Rodrigo Duterte given his current comments that it’s OK to rape 3 women and he has the soldiers backs, he has boasted of offing people and sanctioned executions without trial?

Because, funnily enough – the Philippines is a generally functioning federalist democracy? Other people and parties hold positions of power, just as the senate and congress do in the United States – it would be pointless to cut ties with a country that will hopefully see the back of Duterte when his term comes to an end.

Isolating a country doesn’t usually do much good to them politically – they usually get worse. It’s also a country we should be making an effort to support in it’s fight against ISIS developing a hold on the ARMM region.

Anyone remember the equivalent debate last time with Milliband getting the audience members name wrong 3 times lol!

That’s a bit harsh. Miliband started his tenure badly but got quite slick by the end. You could see the coaching paying off.

May wouldn’t have dared call a snap election if Miliband had been leader right now. Which is quite depressing. Does anyone think May is better than Cameron, or Corbyn is better than Miliband? Not many – there’s a dearth of political talent right now.

I blame the press, they’ve made high office such a ball-ache that nobody wants it. (eg: Chukka.)

And the point being lots of people are very quick to judge his actions many years ago while ignoring what is going on today by members of the current government. It’s called double standards.

No it’s not. The west is typically pally with nasty people for the greater good for Britain. And we’re typically not pally with people who would say: “every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us”. (Unless there’s a really good reason we need to be – intelligence from Gadaffi as Alan Johnson pointed out.)

Corbyn isn’t pally with the IRA for the greater good of Britain, he was pally with the IRA because he thinks Ireland should be one state and that terrorism is a good way to defeat Britain and achieve that.

But again, I notice you’re very keen to talk about historic terrorism and decidedly reluctant to discuss actual current policy: Why are bonds not borrowing? How can you raise corporation tax without revenue dropping as people move their HQ’s abroad?

Pmsl OOB seriously. Go back and could then the posts highlighting this and see who they came from. I’d put the top 3 right wing Trump lovers come out on your list.

Corbyn isn’t pally with the IRA for the greater good of Britain, he was pally with the IRA because he thinks Ireland should be one state and that terrorism is a good way to defeat Britain and achieve that.

He was not “pally” with them though he did , and as far as I am aware still does, support a united Ireland.

Have you a quote to prove the assertion that he thoight it was a good way to defeat Britain ? He has consistently said he disagrees with all terrorism and he wants an end to violence. I love this on the one hand he is a pacifist who wont nuke anyone and on the other a blood thirsty terrorist sympathiser Its one or the **** other 🙄

All this talk is just a RW distraction as they know Ms “strong and stable” is ” weak and wobbly” so they are ad homing [ and lying] rather than extolling her virtues

No it’s not. The west is typically pally with nasty people for the greater good for Britain. And we’re typically not pally with people who would say: “every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us”. (Unless there’s a really good reason we need to be – intelligence from Gadaffi as Alan Johnson pointed out.)

You do know that Duterte isn’t really in a rush to be best mates with former colonial powers, right? I’m not sure the Philippines is a great example of befriending a nation because…. “oil”.

I view western attempts to engage him as an attempt to extend a friendly hand and perhaps alter his internal politics for the better. He’s not the type of person that to change policy when the west beats him with a rhetorical stick.

You do know that Duterte isn’t really in a rush to be best mates with former colonial powers, right?

So why was Liam fox jetting off down there so quick and saying we had lots in common? Care to try a consistent argument

So why was Liam fox jetting off down there so quick and saying we had lots in common? Care to try a consistent argument

Geopolitics and to try and convince the Philippines not to move towards China.

Which, if you actually care about Human Rights – is probably a good thing. I’m sensing a high degree liberal privilege and arrogance when it comes to your views on how we should deal with Duterte.

Have you a quote to prove the assertion that he thoight it was a good way to defeat Britain ?

This is becoming such a circular argument you know that I’m going to say:

It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table.

..and then you’re going to say it wasn’t Corbyn.

And then I’m going to ask you to remind me who said it, and then you’re going to go quiet.

All this talk is just a RW distraction

It’s certainly a distraction, but a RW one? You’re using it as a distraction technique right now, you’ve ignoring every word written about about policy and picking out the few lines on the IRA stuff. So are you distracting from a RW perspective or from a LW POV?

But we both agree it’s a distraction so let’s stick to policy: If Ireland can create a boom by lowering corporation tax, why is raising it not going to do the opposite? Is massive borrowing at a time when we’ve lost our AAA rating a good idea? Is overuse of Keynesian stimulus basically a progressive gambling scheme? (Doubling on losses – if you don’t run out of cash you win small. When you run out of cash you lose massive.) If there’s a simple widely known quick way to achieve growth, why isn’t every nation using it? Will there be parliamentary time to fulfil Labour’s manifesto commitments?

It’s certainly a distraction, but a RW one? You’re using it as a distraction technique right now, you’ve ignoring every word written about about policy and picking out the few lines on the IRA stuff. So are you distracting from a RW perspective or from a LW POV?

Tell us who keeps bringing it up, do you need pen and paper there or do we have to count for you?
I guess now your counting us replying to you as bringing it up. I’ll make it easy Jamby and ninfan about 80%.

Also coming to the negotiations is not defeat.

But we both agree it’s a distraction so let’s stick to policy: If Ireland can create a boom by lowering corporation tax, why is raising it not going to do the opposite?

Because economics isn’t a linear system, and the UK isn’t Ireland. And as a “wealthy” (hahaha) person myself, the last 2 countries I worked had much higher taxes than here, so bumping up my rate a bit won’t have me heading for the door, though other things (decline in services, racist atmosphere, etc) well might.

Is massive borrowing at a time when we’ve lost our AAA rating a good idea? […] If there’s a simple widely known quick way to achieve growth, why isn’t every nation using it?

Nobody is claiming that there is. What people are saying is that judicious state intervention in the economy is valuable in the long term, and represents a better opportunity for Britain than the current race to the bottom.

Will there be parliamentary time to fulfil Labour’s manifesto commitments?

Who knows? – is that actually an argument for not starting the job – that you won’t finish by tea time?

: If Ireland can create a boom by lowering corporation tax, why is raising it not going to do the opposite?

Reducing their tax base also left them very vulnerable to economic downturns…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25339066. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-2008_Irish_banking_crisis.

Either they don’t understand, or regard taxing wealthy people and businesses to force them abroad as a good thing. They can’t possibly believe that there’s a massive untapped source of cash available that no other government noticed.

Erm….

and then you’re going to say it wasn’t Corbyn.

And then I’m going to ask you to remind me who said it, and then you’re going to go quiet.No i am going to point out that logically you cannot prove what Corbyn thinks by quoting the opinion of someone else
I am then going to be flabbergasted that someone needs this explaining to them and then repeat the question asking for a quote from Corbyn

You are not going to provided one and then you are going to go quiet – I cannot discount you still go on and on insisting its true as you appear to not need facts to hold opinions

The claim by the Conservatives that higher borrowing would lead to much higher deficits and an explosion in the national debt is dismissed by Oxford Economics as the pre-Keynesian nonsense it is.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/28/far-from-strong-and-stable-mays-economic-plan-is-weak-and-unstable?CMP=fb_gu

That Guardian article is useless without seeing the actual report. What Oxford Economics put into the model will decide the outcome, and there is no visibility on what they put in or any assumptions made.

I can’t see how anyone can call Labours policies Keynesian when there is no mechanism to run a surplus in the good times. Lots of spend, little on how they will cut it back later.

How can you raise corporation tax without revenue dropping as people move their HQ’s abroad?

The way i understood it, regardless of what flag of convenience you HQ in, any business conducted here will be liable to UK taxation?

The way i understood it, regardless of what flag of convenience you HQ in, any business conducted here will be liable to UK taxation?
[/Quote]

LOL

Think Starbucks, Google, Guardian Media Group etc

Funnily enough, Starbucks was one of the companies Corbyn alluded to, when making his statement that my words are to the effect of

.

The way i understood it, regardless of what flag of convenience you HQ in, any business conducted here will be liable to UK taxation?

Yes, of course you pay tax on all your business conducted here, but if you move your HQ abroad you pay *their* corporation tax. For instance a medium sized firm near where I work moved it’s HQ to Belgium a couple of years back. to satisfy the various laws involved IIRC that required the movement of 3 roles to Belgium and the board having physical meetings in Belgium. The other 400 or so staff remained in the UK and all the directors worked full time in the UK.

So yeah, VAT, PAYE etc are all paid as they always were. But the corporation tax goes to Belgium.

It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table.

Unpalatable? Yes.
True? Yes.

That’s a bit harsh. Miliband started his tenure badly but got quite slick by the end. You could see the coaching paying off.

Whereas Corbyn gives the impression he doesn’t need coaching.

Starbucks was one of the companies Corbyn alluded to

I doubt Corbyn claimed Starbucks don’t pay VAT/PAYE etc. I’d be interested in hear specifically what policy he’s proposing to stop Starbucks doing whatever he claims they are.

Google suggests this, is that what we’re talking about?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/16/jeremy-corbyn-really-doesnt-understand-the-starbucks-case/#1cfa29265133

Either the Peston or Marr interview at the weekend

So paye evasion
Uber, deliveroo etc.
Vat
Remind me of how their tax evasion goes? Vat in and out counts in some way
Plenty of ways…
Anyway there is an update tapped tax resource out there just needs better rules and less vested interest.

Unpalatable? Yes.
True? Yes.

Yeah, Martin McGuinness would not have been NI education secretary if it’s wasn’t for the violence.

Kill people, spread hatred and you end up in a position to prevent mixed faith schools being the norm in Ireland which helps maintain hatred and leads to more killing. 🙁

Anyway, we don’t want to be distracted by the IRA do we? Letss stick to policy. Can someone explain exactly what Labour are going to do to stop Starbucks doing whatever it is they think is wrong?

Labour are going to do to stop Starbucks doing whatever it is they think is wrong?

Diverting all profits off shore.
Have a go at revisions to tax. What are the Tories going to do about it? Anything? Given corporate tax gaps are way bigger than any benefit claim fraud which should be a priority?
How much student debt do the Tories expect to be repaid compared to properly funding tuition fees?
Why don’t the Tories look at proper inheritance tax as opposed to a half hearted tax to fund elderly care?

I don’t know any specific policy in the manifesto, but it was corporation tax he was after.

However, I know that things changed for Starbucks in 2015, so I don’t know if there’s much to chase any more.
Apparently in 2015 they paid as much corporation tax as all their other trading years put together (8.1m). So 16million in Corporation tax on £3bn sales.

This was after public pressure, and to save face.
If they had been compelled legally to do it and this spread to other companies, then it could amount to a useful sum.

Not many people think it’s possible though.

That Guardian article is useless without seeing the actual report.

Not useless at all. It refers specifically to a report and quotes some conclusions. If you want to assess the methodology, go ahead and get a copy.

The Tories have already clamped down on a lot of the older more ‘flexible’ tax avoidance practices. So how much room there is to tighten the regs further, I think only an expert could tell you.

@ out of breath
Silence is golden 😉

I go for three days before you repeat the falsehood you KNOW you cannot defend credibly.

Have a go at revisions to tax. What are the Tories going to do about it? Anything?

I’d imagine every Government in history has done everything it can to collect as much revenue as it can get away with.

I think this is why people are so cynical when oppositions say they’re going to cut down on waste and increase tax revenue. If it was that easy it would already have happened.

Anyway here’s a bit of detail about what labour intend to do about it all:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/john-mcdonnell/news/85890/read-labours-full-17-point-plan

As a cynic I can’t help but think that the fact item 1 is an enquiry suggests they don’t have a lot of effective ideas.

Anyone explain why the Mayfair Loophole wasn’t closed by governments of every colour. Google is fairly quiet on the reasons for it’s existence, but there must be a reason.

So 16million in Corporation tax on £3bn sales

does anyone actually think this really reflects their true profits here?

I imagine a tax based on turnover or sales should be sufficient to get their attention. What can they do leave and stop trading?
TBH i am perfectly happy to make laws just for specific companies that are seen to be doing this
Granted we cannot get them all but apple will still sell here even if they are taxed properly, as they will still make money, just not as much. Its not like they will have a flounce and stop all apple related sales here.

I’d imagine every Government in history has done everything it can to collect as much revenue as it can get away with.

I would rather have though you would have heard of at least one government that had been voted in on a tax reduction pledge

Really you cannot think of a govt that reduced taxes 😯

I imagine a tax based on turnover or sales

What do you think VAT is?

Really you cannot think of a govt that reduced taxes

Not really, AFAIK all UK governments since WW2 have taxed ~35pc of GDP, which I’d guess is as much as the various Laffer Curves can stand.

Not useless at all. It refers specifically to a report and quotes some conclusions. If you want to assess the methodology, go ahead and get a copy.

It is fairly useless as its not a publicly available report, so we’ve no idea what’s been fed into the model.

The only other info I can find on the report online are that it found that under Lib Dems and Labour plans government gilt yields would rise, and also public debt would rise significantly under Labour and hence, it would likley not meet its own target. However, significant uncertainties around the Labour proposals mean it is hard to model, quote below.

“There is significant uncertainty around the timing and cost of Labour’s mooted renationalisation programme and it is also unclear how the ONS will classify the asset purchases,”

So from all that, essentially you can pick the outcome that best fits your agenda. And I bet all the models turn out to be wrong anyway.

It is fairly useless as its not a publicly available report, so we’ve no idea what’s been fed into the model.

It would be useless to you if the objective was to for you to be able to make a detailed assessment of the methodology, data etc. However, as this is a mountain bike chat forum, I think that’s a bit out of scope, and the reason for bringing it up is to point out that people like oob who make dismissive simplistic claims are not voicing universally accepted points of view.

Whats going to happen to tax when we leave the EU? Isn’t the rule that you can pay tax in any EU state on earnings made in the EU? So Luxembourg gets rich with others tax income?

the various Laffer Curves

Hahahah – there’s one from the past !!