A superb Speech and Vow by Cameron well above expectations
Discussion
CamMoreRon said:
Ultimately it will be something that we only realise in hindsight, because so many people (evident in this thread) are very closed off to any kind of alternative. Partly this is due to the way debate is controlled so that important points are not answered and attention is diverted elsewhere - e.g. the response to my saying enforcing corporation tax would be a higher net earner for the UK economy than slashing spending was responded to with accusations of libel / slander. I haven't seen a single post aimed at convincing me tax enforcement would be a detriment to the economy.
Yes you got us. most of us believe socialism will not work.You are more than welcome to move to N Korea to experience true equality.
Rovinghawk said:
So we raise taxes & all the corporations say "OK" and meekly pay more? I don't think so.
You didn't say enforcing tax law, you said change the law. Libel comments were regarding your claim that large corporations were cooking the books.
Enforcement of tax law is fine. Enforcing laws that don't exist (in the name of 'fairness', presumably) could be very detrimental.
Firstly, we don't need to raise taxes. That would be unfair on those companies who have been paying the proper rates all along. At no point have I said taxes need to be increased, in fact I said that they could even be decreased.You didn't say enforcing tax law, you said change the law. Libel comments were regarding your claim that large corporations were cooking the books.
Enforcement of tax law is fine. Enforcing laws that don't exist (in the name of 'fairness', presumably) could be very detrimental.
Secondly, I said the tax systems we have need to be enforced, and loopholes closed; that requires a change in the law. Laws do exist - corporations tax is a percentage of profits. The problem is that we have no regulation on how some companies cook up their books - and they are cooking the books. This needs to change.
Enforcing the tax systems we have with new / revised law would not be detrimental. This is a threat made by people with vested interests to try and retain control. Do you really, seriously think that any of these big avoiders would completely stop trading in this country if we investigated & audited them so they paid their taxes properly? If so, why? Where would they go? How would they recuperate the massive losses they would see without our market sector, and how would this be explained to their investors? Finally, how long would it be until a more honest supplier of the same goods filled their place?
Mrr T said:
Yes you got us. most of us believe socialism will not work.
You are more than welcome to move to N Korea to experience true equality.
I must have been in a trance when I posted about my Socialist utopia, because I don't remember saying such things!You are more than welcome to move to N Korea to experience true equality.
I thought all I was talking about was a fair tax system spelling the end to "austerity".
CamMoreRon said:
At no point have I said taxes need to be increased, in fact I said that they could even be decreased.
you said certain organisations should pay more tax. Sounds like a tax increase to me.CamMoreRon said:
they are cooking the books.
There you go with the accusations again. CamMoreRon said:
Enforcing the tax systems we have with new / revised law would not be detrimental.
Ever hear what happened in the 1970s when they changed the tax laws? CamMoreRon said:
I thought all I was talking about was a fair tax system
'Fair' meaning they pay more, you pay less?CamMoreRon said:
Firstly, we don't need to raise taxes. That would be unfair on those companies who have been paying the proper rates all along. At no point have I said taxes need to be increased, in fact I said that they could even be decreased.
They are already paying the proper rate.CamMoreRon said:
Secondly, I said the tax systems we have need to be enforced, and loopholes closed; that requires a change in the law. Laws do exist - corporations tax is a percentage of profits. The problem is that we have no regulation on how some companies cook up their books - and they are cooking the books. This needs to change.
And you know this because......?Have you called up the HMRC helpline to report this yet?.
CamMoreRon said:
Enforcing the tax systems we have with new / revised law would not be detrimental. This is a threat made by people with vested interests to try and retain control. Do you really, seriously think that any of these big avoiders would completely stop trading in this country if we investigated & audited them so they paid their taxes properly? If so, why? Where would they go? How would they recuperate the massive losses they would see without our market sector, and how would this be explained to their investors? Finally, how long would it be until a more honest supplier of the same goods filled their place?
What would happen to prices?0000 said:
CamMoreRon said:
0000 said:
How do you know he hasn't used, for instance, the Flat Rate Scheme for VAT or claimed the £2k NI Employment Allowance? Are you his accountant?
Because I know him very well. He didn't start off a businessman, he was just doing this as a passion so his attention to detail was focused on the product rather than the finances. He has an accountant nowadays, but is still very open with us (his family) about how the business is run.Family gatherings must be a hoot in your household
Mrr T said:
edh said:
Well when they publish the numbers we can see.
"(Reuters) - Starbucks' coffee menu famously baffles some people. In Britain, it's their accounts that are confusing. Starbucks has been telling investors the business was profitable, even as it consistently reported losses"
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-britai...
It was profitable before the royalty payment is makes for the use of the brand name. Afterwards its only just breaks even. So profitable from a group perceptive but not in the UK."(Reuters) - Starbucks' coffee menu famously baffles some people. In Britain, it's their accounts that are confusing. Starbucks has been telling investors the business was profitable, even as it consistently reported losses"
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-britai...
Edited by edh on Thursday 2nd October 14:18
Finance is not hard after you pass the exams.
You know that Starbucks and many others will do their best to obscure their trading profits to minimise their tax liabilities. There's a huge industry associated with these activities. It sails very close to the edge of the law, sometimes stepping over. Nothing is as clear cut as the picture you have painted, specially when dealing with people who have passed their "exams".
I used to work with a finance director who told me that his board would believe anything he told them, as long as it was printed out from a computer... And another who when told by head office to revise his budget to meet his profit targets in the new year, just altered the front sheet, got it approved, and found himself a new job. I was asked several weeks later by the new (very worried) FD - "these sales figures - they don't add up?" "that's because they don't" I told him. Not sure how he ever squared that one with our head office.
CamMoreRon said:
You two really need to stop with the flat-out denials and start providing some sort of counter-argument or I'm going to start losing interest.
Surely it's up to you to prove your claims...Remind me what extensive knowledge, training and investigations you've done to come to your conclusions. I'd be much re likely to take your claims seriously if I knew they originated from well-informed and detailed analysis....
Remind me again, how much tax do you currently pay?
How much tax will you pay in your 'post-austerity' nirvana?
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 2nd October 15:38
sidicks said:
Surely it's up to you to prove your claims...
Remind me what extensive knowledge, training and investigations you've done to come to your conclusions. I'd be much re likely to take your claims seriously if I knew they originated from well-informed and detailed analysis....
Remind me again, how much tax do you currently pay?
How much tax will you pay in your 'post-austerity' nirvana?
Remind me what your qualifications are? Are you a Starbucks accountant? What do you do for a living? Come on.. let's disregard any points each other may have made, however valid they may be, and focus instead on attempting to undermine each other's credibility.Remind me what extensive knowledge, training and investigations you've done to come to your conclusions. I'd be much re likely to take your claims seriously if I knew they originated from well-informed and detailed analysis....
Remind me again, how much tax do you currently pay?
How much tax will you pay in your 'post-austerity' nirvana?
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 2nd October 15:38
In case you can't realise I am being incredibly facetious.
I pay Income Tax on my salary, VAT on my purchases, VED on my car, Fuel Duty also on my car, various other duties on alcohol / occasional tobacco and other goods.
In my post-austerity nirvana I would be happy continuing to pay this amount, if I could see that it was being put towards sensible investments like infrastructure, education and health, rather than being used to subsidise the selfishness of the rich.
This is all very miss-guided. It's also worth pointing out that a company doesn't have to make a profit to make a contribution to an economy.
Vodafone made massive losses once upon a time and paid no tax, yet it's clear to see that particular company has had a positive effect on the UK economy over its lifetime. Whether that be employment, infrastructure or even research and development.
Encouraging businesses in the UK through low tax rates is absolutely unfair if they're not done right, but it's also absolutely critical to maintain investment in our tiny little island, because otherwise, developing countries will (and are) catching us and taking away crucial investment.
You'd have to be a little short sighted to not realise that.
Vodafone made massive losses once upon a time and paid no tax, yet it's clear to see that particular company has had a positive effect on the UK economy over its lifetime. Whether that be employment, infrastructure or even research and development.
Encouraging businesses in the UK through low tax rates is absolutely unfair if they're not done right, but it's also absolutely critical to maintain investment in our tiny little island, because otherwise, developing countries will (and are) catching us and taking away crucial investment.
You'd have to be a little short sighted to not realise that.
CamMoreRon said:
Remind me what your qualifications are? Are you a Starbucks accountant? What do you do for a living? Come on.. let's disregard any points each other may have made, however valid they may be, and focus instead on attempting to undermine each other's credibility.
How can you claim your points are valid if they are not based on any form of knowledge, expertise or informed analysis?CamMoreRon said:
In my post-austerity nirvana I would be happy continuing to pay this amount, if I could see that it was being put towards sensible investments like infrastructure, education and health, rather than being used to subsidise the selfishness of the rich.
Ah, the 'someone else can pay more' routine. As I suspected.What about all those Amazon customers, how will they feel about significant price increases?
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 2nd October 15:57
RichB said:
Rovinghawk said:
CamMoreRon said:
rather than being used to subsidise the selfishness of the rich.
What is this selfishness you refer to & how exactly is it being subsidised? Who are 'the rich', btw?
edh said:
I'm so hurt - someone on the internet that I don't know has tried to be condescending to me
You know that Starbucks and many others will do their best to obscure their trading profits to minimise their tax liabilities. There's a huge industry associated with these activities. It sails very close to the edge of the law, sometimes stepping over. Nothing is as clear cut as the picture you have painted, specially when dealing with people who have passed their "exams".
I used to work with a finance director who told me that his board would believe anything he told them, as long as it was printed out from a computer... And another who when told by head office to revise his budget to meet his profit targets in the new year, just altered the front sheet, got it approved, and found himself a new job. I was asked several weeks later by the new (very worried) FD - "these sales figures - they don't add up?" "that's because they don't" I told him. Not sure how he ever squared that one with our head office.
So your evidence of cooking the books is a Finance Director you used to work for and some one altering a budget. You know that Starbucks and many others will do their best to obscure their trading profits to minimise their tax liabilities. There's a huge industry associated with these activities. It sails very close to the edge of the law, sometimes stepping over. Nothing is as clear cut as the picture you have painted, specially when dealing with people who have passed their "exams".
I used to work with a finance director who told me that his board would believe anything he told them, as long as it was printed out from a computer... And another who when told by head office to revise his budget to meet his profit targets in the new year, just altered the front sheet, got it approved, and found himself a new job. I was asked several weeks later by the new (very worried) FD - "these sales figures - they don't add up?" "that's because they don't" I told him. Not sure how he ever squared that one with our head office.
As for large UK companies avoiding tax, you have no evidence.
My own experience that companies do not consider the saving will offset the risks.
A company will correctly organises itself to minimise tax. It owes this to its share holders who are the owners.
The idea a company will use transfer pricing to move profits is frankly ludicrous. HMRC are all over any large companies transfer pricing policy.
Interest on inter company loans, internal software licence agreement. will all require a company policy which HMRC will have the option to review.
Further, external auditors will be reviewing such policies are followed.
Get it wrong and HMRC have very wide and fairly arbitrary powers.
The suggestion you can get more taxes by changing company tax law but not the rate is similar to the pig flying ourside my window.
this must be now close to the point when the question is asked : define wealthy. 
dirty boy said:
This is all very miss-guided. It's also worth pointing out that a company doesn't have to make a profit to make a contribution to an economy.
Vodafone made massive losses once upon a time and paid no tax, yet it's clear to see that particular company has had a positive effect on the UK economy over its lifetime. Whether that be employment, infrastructure or even research and development.
Encouraging businesses in the UK through low tax rates is absolutely unfair if they're not done right, but it's also absolutely critical to maintain investment in our tiny little island, because otherwise, developing countries will (and are) catching us and taking away crucial investment.
You'd have to be a little short sighted to not realise that.
Not disagreeing with your post but another heads up to the fair tax brigade. Who also often quote Vodaphone for underpaying UK taxes. Vodafone made massive losses once upon a time and paid no tax, yet it's clear to see that particular company has had a positive effect on the UK economy over its lifetime. Whether that be employment, infrastructure or even research and development.
Encouraging businesses in the UK through low tax rates is absolutely unfair if they're not done right, but it's also absolutely critical to maintain investment in our tiny little island, because otherwise, developing countries will (and are) catching us and taking away crucial investment.
You'd have to be a little short sighted to not realise that.
The reason Vodaphone paid such low taxes for a number of years is that they vastly overpaid for 3G licences. The income for selling the 3G licence went in to the coffers of the Labour government who wasted it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff