A superb Speech and Vow by Cameron well above expectations
Discussion
CamMoreRon said:
So yes, avoidance COSTS the economy money, because it funnels profits away and in to tax havens.
You seem to have a blind spot in regard to what constitutes 'avoidance' and what constitutes 'evasion'. It is not difficult to understand as many have already pointed out.So long as the 'avoidance' is within the tax laws, it's perfectly legal and doesn't cost the economy anything because the system allows for such taxes not to be due.
I don't know how to make it any simpler for you?
CamMoreRon said:
Ok.. Corporation Tax is set at 20%, for argument's sake. If a company is paying 2%, then the government has LOST 18% of what it was ENTITLED TO.
That depends on why it is paying 2%. Again you are confused with the difference between evasion and avoidance.CamMoreRon said:
You could use your argument another way: I set up a business and take most of my payments cash-in-hand with no invoices and no record. My cash income is £40k per annum but my invoiced income is £12k per annum. I don't have to pay tax, or I pay a measly amount of tax on that £12k, and I get to pocket the cash. Have I robbed the government, or not? HMRC would probably think so, and if they found out, would probably quarter me for the offence!
That's evasion.This really shouldn't be this difficult....
CamMoreRon said:
It is fundamentally no different for a tax avoiding company like Vodafone, Starbucks or Amazon. Except their cash-in-hand job is a small company offshore (Luxembourg / Ireland) which is used to fabricate a loss in the UK business and take it off the books. So despite making profits of millions / billions here, they just pay a tiny percentage of it because what they declare is just a fraction of what they actually made.
Once agin you are clearly talking about issues which are way above your level of understanding.The issues involving Vodafone, Stabucks and Amazon are completely different and for various reasons none of these companies owe money as you claim.
Learn about transfer pricing requirements to start with....
CamMoreRon said:
So yes, avoidance COSTS the economy money, because it funnels profits away and in to tax havens. Furthermore, these companies typically pay below what is considered a living wage, so many of the workforce require state support. The state is effectively subsidising the tax avoider by paying for workers to be able to work, so it is a compounding problem!
Go away and educate yourself, if you want a credible discussion.CamMoreRon said:
There are many good articles on why austerity is a bad economic policy, especially at times of recession. I will link some if people are prepared to read.
There are many reasons why spending money you don't have is a bad policy (particularly doing so in a boom...CamMoreRon said:
Ok.. Corporation Tax is set at 20%, for argument's sake. If a company is paying 2%, then the government has LOST 18% of what it was ENTITLED TO.
CT is 20% for argument's sake of profit. Companies don't pay 2%.
CamMoreRon said:
I set up a business and take most of my payments cash-in-hand with no invoices and no record.
This is tax evasion, is illegal and is very different to the avoidance that you mentioned.CamMoreRon said:
Have I robbed the government, or not?
Yes. But it's not tax avoidance.CamMoreRon said:
It is fundamentally no different for a tax avoiding company like Vodafone, Starbucks or Amazon.
Yes it is. You're talking about false accounting, they use the system to their advantage.CamMoreRon said:
There are many good articles on why austerity is a bad economic policy, especially at times of recession. I will link some if people are prepared to read.
There are many articles, both for & against. You pays your money & you takes your choice. I personally believe that not spending money you don't have is a wiser course.
Adrian W said:
It was a speech for the stupid and gullible, where will he take the cash from to finance the tax cuts? why does he not make it fair and cut VAT instead. If you vote for me again I'll do this and that, housing, NHS,tax cuts, do it now, why wait, show you mean it.........oh, you don't mean it.
worked for thatcher i suppose,
Eh? First time I've heard of cutting a consumption tax being fairer than income tax.worked for thatcher i suppose,
blade runner said:
You seem to have a blind spot in regard to what constitutes 'avoidance' and what constitutes 'evasion'. It is not difficult to understand as many have already pointed out.
So long as the 'avoidance' is within the tax laws, it's perfectly legal and doesn't cost the economy anything because the system allows for such taxes not to be due.
I don't know how to make it any simpler for you?
Right, and therein lies the problem. The laws have been developed by various Tory governments (Conservative AND Labour) to create legal loopholes and allow this behaviour. So long as the 'avoidance' is within the tax laws, it's perfectly legal and doesn't cost the economy anything because the system allows for such taxes not to be due.
I don't know how to make it any simpler for you?
But it does cost the economy! How can it not?
What you are saying is: If you write a law to make it legal not to pay tax, then the economy hasn't lost anything because it is no longer entitled to it. Do you see how ludicrous that idea is?
Of course tax avoidance costs the country money. Tax. Avoidance. Tax is avoided. Tax that would otherwise be paid in a fair system is not being paid because a company can afford to exploit the law!
This is the problem with Tory ideology. They cannot see the wood for the trees!
Our budget doesn't stack up.. what do we do? Well, we currently haemorrhage money to Swiss bank accounts through complex financial loopholes.. so let's cut benefits and save ourselves a small percentage of that in the short term.
I can make this clearer for you if you need me to. Please say.
sidicks said:
Once agin you are clearly talking about issues which are way above your level of understanding.
The issues involving Vodafone, Stabucks and Amazon are completely different and for various reasons none of these companies owe money as you claim.
Learn about transfer pricing requirements to start with....
Go away and educate yourself, if you want a credible discussion.
How about you try to educate me? Instead of berating why not say something constructive and informative? The issues involving Vodafone, Stabucks and Amazon are completely different and for various reasons none of these companies owe money as you claim.
Learn about transfer pricing requirements to start with....
Go away and educate yourself, if you want a credible discussion.
sisicks said:
There are many reasons why spending money you don't have is a bad policy (particularly doing so in a boom...
And there are many more reasons why this idea is false.Johnnytheboy said:
I'm trying to get a grasp on where you sit on the political spectrum...
I'd say I sit as an observer. I don't like the idea of left wing / right wing. I think all it causes is conflict and stops real discussion from taking place. Both sides have valid points in some instances, but there should be no place for tribalism in politics.
CamMoreRon said:
Right, and therein lies the problem. The laws have been developed by various Tory governments (Conservative AND Labour) to create legal loopholes and allow this behaviour.
Because these rules are there for good reason.By the way, Labour and the Tories are different, you knew that, right?
CamMoreRon said:
But it does cost the economy! How can it not?
By the same token, you not paying 100% of your income in tax 'costs the economy'. How can you justify your tax avoidance?CamMoreRon said:
What you are saying is: If you write a law to make it legal not to pay tax, then the economy hasn't lost anything because it is no longer entitled to it. Do you see how ludicrous that idea is?
Of course tax avoidance costs the country money. Tax. Avoidance. Tax is avoided. Tax that would otherwise be paid in a fair system is not being paid because a company can afford to exploit the law!
Obeying the law is not exploiting the law. How are you still struggling with this?Of course tax avoidance costs the country money. Tax. Avoidance. Tax is avoided. Tax that would otherwise be paid in a fair system is not being paid because a company can afford to exploit the law!
CamMoreRon said:
This is the problem with Tory ideology. They cannot see the wood for the trees!
Is obeying the law a purely Tory ideology?CamMoreRon said:
Our budget doesn't stack up.. what do we do? Well, we currently haemorrhage money to Swiss bank accounts through complex financial loopholes.. so let's cut benefits and save ourselves a small percentage of that in the short term.
That's a totally ignorant rant - if you want a discussion you'll have to be a bit better informed than you currently are.CamMoreRon said:
I can make this clearer for you if you need me to. Please say.
Do you get your information from the Guardian newspaper??Edited by sidicks on Thursday 2nd October 12:23
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 2nd October 12:28
CamMoreRon said:
What you are saying is: If you write a law to make it legal not to pay tax, then the economy hasn't lost anything because it is no longer entitled to it. Do you see how ludicrous that idea is?
We are not making laws legalising non-payment of tax. We are making laws explaining what tax must be paid. If you have a car with a VED less than £450, you have arranged your personal affairs so as to lessen your tax bill. Is this ludicrous because you 'should' pay the full £450?
CamMoreRon said:
Tax that would otherwise be paid in a fair system
I'm not sure what 'fair' means. Would you please tell me what you mean by 'fair'?CamMoreRon said:
I can make this clearer for you if you need me to. Please say.
Please do. I'd like it if you could start by explaining why tax should be paid when it's not actually due.CamMoreRon said:
Right, and therein lies the problem. The laws have been developed by various Tory governments (Conservative AND Labour) to create legal loopholes and allow this behaviour.
But it does cost the economy! How can it not?
What you are saying is: If you write a law to make it legal not to pay tax, then the economy hasn't lost anything because it is no longer entitled to it. Do you see how ludicrous that idea is?
Of course tax avoidance costs the country money. Tax. Avoidance. Tax is avoided. Tax that would otherwise be paid in a fair system is not being paid because a company can afford to exploit the law!
I trust you're not avoiding tax by paying into an ISA, if so, how very dare you. That would be avoidance which makes you one of the evil ones exploiting the law. But it does cost the economy! How can it not?
What you are saying is: If you write a law to make it legal not to pay tax, then the economy hasn't lost anything because it is no longer entitled to it. Do you see how ludicrous that idea is?
Of course tax avoidance costs the country money. Tax. Avoidance. Tax is avoided. Tax that would otherwise be paid in a fair system is not being paid because a company can afford to exploit the law!
CamMoreRon said:
This is the problem with Tory ideology. They cannot see the wood for the trees!
It would appear you are unable to see wood or trees if you can't get your head around the difference between evasion and avoidance....CamMoreRon said:
How about you try to educate me? Instead of berating why not say something constructive and informative?
This isn't the Open Univeristy!!You're the one making the absurd claims about things you obviously have no basic understanding about. How about you bother to do some research about Starbucs, Amazon, Vodafone etc and then come back when you're ready for a discussion? That way your claims may be somewhat more grounded in reality...
sisicks said:
There are many reasons why spending money you don't have is a bad policy (particularly doing so in a boom...
And there are many more reasons why this idea is false.Shouldn't you be back in school?
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 2nd October 12:37
k? Both?CamMoreRon said:
Excuses. Don't apologise for them. Austerity hasn't worked and it won't work, no matter how long they keep it up for. Austerity is an ideology from the Thatcher era, and is based on a completely outdated and inaccurate method of economic projection. Osbourne used outdated fiscal multipliers that are heavily biased against state spending to make his projections, and guess what? IT DIDN'T WORK.
The Tories have managed to lift the economy to barely scrape pre-crisis levels by the exact same methods that caused the crisis in the first place! A race to the bottom on taxes for the rich, and woefully poor regulation of the housing & financial markets. These are imaginary economic contributors.. they do not contribute to the actual well-being of the people, only to line the pockets at the top. In reality, state spending on infrastructure and critical services proves to be much more beneficial to the state than slashing budgets and selling them off - especially when you realise that the companies they often get sold off to are either offshore, or funnel their profits offshore and do not give back in taxes, as we were told they would!
I could go on about this for hours!
The real question is would you ever actually stop talking nonsense?The Tories have managed to lift the economy to barely scrape pre-crisis levels by the exact same methods that caused the crisis in the first place! A race to the bottom on taxes for the rich, and woefully poor regulation of the housing & financial markets. These are imaginary economic contributors.. they do not contribute to the actual well-being of the people, only to line the pockets at the top. In reality, state spending on infrastructure and critical services proves to be much more beneficial to the state than slashing budgets and selling them off - especially when you realise that the companies they often get sold off to are either offshore, or funnel their profits offshore and do not give back in taxes, as we were told they would!
I could go on about this for hours!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff