Snap General Election?
Discussion
andy_s said:
dimots said:
Why do you think it would be difficult to implement? I don't understand your reasoning? Should be easy.
India and Canada currently leading online ad tax initiatives. Don't see why UK couldn't jump in. Plenty of cash to be claimed and the only effect on Joe public is less crappy online ads.
They're proposals for preventing online advertising being tax deductible, why it's difficult in practise is that it's not how generalised ad placement works - you don't pay to put your ad in the sidebar of pistonheads specifically, you pay for google [or other] to display your ad when it lines up with a viewers viewing habits and internet history/cookies. You (the advertiser) aren't placing the ad specifically.India and Canada currently leading online ad tax initiatives. Don't see why UK couldn't jump in. Plenty of cash to be claimed and the only effect on Joe public is less crappy online ads.
It's something that has to be thrashed out, at least that's my understanding.
I agree that the government need to move with the times, but they should do so with a pragmatism about how it actually works - the problem with a lot of proposals of this nature is it assumes the 'target' won't move and adapt, which is patently not the case.
To me it's a great way to generate more tax revenue because nobody will care - paying more for ads will only push out low cost spam and crappy ads...most advertisers would barely notice as they continually revise bid strategies against competitors.
dimots said:
Arguing over this point with an accountant who believes it is the duty of every business to pay as little tax as it can get away with is truly a waste of energy.
However, should a forward thinking government wish to raise more taxes, clean up the online advertising industry, reduce spam and scams, and also deliver the arguable side-benefit of improving the chance of bricks and mortar high street stores remaining competitive it should introduce a point of consumption tax on online ad impressions delivered to residents in the U.K.
Online advertising is currently too cheap because many of the companies offering it are dodging taxes which should be being collected and priced into their business models.
I think most readers could follow this was the thrust of the thread.However, should a forward thinking government wish to raise more taxes, clean up the online advertising industry, reduce spam and scams, and also deliver the arguable side-benefit of improving the chance of bricks and mortar high street stores remaining competitive it should introduce a point of consumption tax on online ad impressions delivered to residents in the U.K.
Online advertising is currently too cheap because many of the companies offering it are dodging taxes which should be being collected and priced into their business models.
It should also be logical apolitical aim - the UK can remain competitive while still securing an income from facebook revenue that is generated in the UK, it should not be a left or right issue, but needs to be done carefully and in a global context.
The "pedant" pretends to not still get it and prefers to argue very very narrow points of precision lest he been seen to be even slightly mistaken or have missed the wider point in an earlier reply. Next he'll be splitting hairs over .... ah yes!
dimots said:
Sidicks, am I to conclude you're not an accountant?
I am not an accountant, neither have I said anything that aligns with a belief that "it is the duty of every business to pay as little tax as it can get away with".Do you want to go for a hat trick of misrepresentation?!
sidicks said:
I am not an accountant, neither have I said anything that aligns with a belief that "it is the duty of every business to pay as little tax as it can get away with".
Do you want to go for a hat trick of misrepresentation?!
No that's fine thanks. Duly noted and added to my Sidicks fact-file.Do you want to go for a hat trick of misrepresentation?!
I will bite on the last few pages and make the apolitical point that there is a general trend in this world towards lower Corporation Tax offset by higher taxes on individuals. The Irish economy has been a good example. Despite being fairly left wing in my views it is patently obvious to me that lowering CT in this country and re-working the NIC system such that it is both more equally paid in to and gives more accessible benefits by all classes of workers will 99% likely produce a return in terms of both economic growth and tax income.
Its really silly for Labour to make grandstanding promises to extract tax from companies where its 99% likely they will completely fail to get that money. Ultimately it requires IMHO a massive simplification of the tax system which is an undertaking that will take up a large part of the civil services focus over a generation. Forget it whilst Brexit is going on, just can't happen.
Its really silly for Labour to make grandstanding promises to extract tax from companies where its 99% likely they will completely fail to get that money. Ultimately it requires IMHO a massive simplification of the tax system which is an undertaking that will take up a large part of the civil services focus over a generation. Forget it whilst Brexit is going on, just can't happen.
NJH said:
I will bite on the last few pages and make the apolitical point that there is a general trend in this world towards lower Corporation Tax offset by higher taxes on individuals. The Irish economy has been a good example. Despite being fairly left wing in my views it is patently obvious to me that lowering CT in this country and re-working the NIC system such that it is both more equally paid in to and gives more accessible benefits by all classes of workers will 99% likely produce a return in terms of both economic growth and tax income.
Companies don't pay tax, individuals do - higher 'company' taxes means lower payments to customers and / or employees and / or shareholders. Recognising that fact and constructing the system accordingly makes much more sense.
NJH said:
Its really silly for Labour to make grandstanding promises to extract tax from companies where its 99% likely they will completely fail to get that money. Ultimately it requires IMHO a massive simplification of the tax system which is an undertaking that will take up a large part of the civil services focus over a generation. Forget it whilst Brexit is going on, just can't happen.
Edited by sidicks on Monday 1st May 11:16
PurpleMoonlight said:
The current tax burden is the highest it has been for 30 odd years I believe. The Government cannot just keep taking more and more. It needs to spend less even if that is painful for some.
For a start, we could reduce the number of MP's by 50%.
Unless there's a big upset we will certainly need fewer.For a start, we could reduce the number of MP's by 50%.
robemcdonald said:
andy_s said:
Business' don't exist for the benefit of the exchequer, they exist for the benefit of the shareholder.
Without wanting to tread old ground this statement backs up my point. If a company that employs thousands of people only makes a £24k profit what's in it for the share holders?They're only one miscalculated away from making a loss.
You then say it's easier just to leave things as they are. Once again making my original point; it's easier to take from the poorest than to try and take on the big boys.
At least you've been honest about it rather than offer up a rationale to justify it.
What I'm saying is that no one goes into business for the benefit of government, 'taking on the big boys' can be a false economy and although I baulk at some of the money some people have for seemingly little effort, dissuading them from spending that money here is generally detrimental to the economy in general.
Furthermore, I would say that rather the focus being on taxing the untaxable or those who are so poor the percentage offers marginal gain, the emphasis should be on efficient use of the revenue we do have as much as how that revenue is collected/apportioned. The waste in govt., NHS, armed forces, vanity projects (Boris, I'm looking at you), low-key corruption at local level, superfluous management levels, preferential deals, quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations (remember them?), foreign 'adventures', inefficiencies, Private Finance Initiatives etc etc are all areas that haemorrhage money out of the system as fast as we can tip it in.
dimots said:
andy_s said:
dimots said:
Why do you think it would be difficult to implement? I don't understand your reasoning? Should be easy.
India and Canada currently leading online ad tax initiatives. Don't see why UK couldn't jump in. Plenty of cash to be claimed and the only effect on Joe public is less crappy online ads.
They're proposals for preventing online advertising being tax deductible, why it's difficult in practise is that it's not how generalised ad placement works - you don't pay to put your ad in the sidebar of pistonheads specifically, you pay for google [or other] to display your ad when it lines up with a viewers viewing habits and internet history/cookies. You (the advertiser) aren't placing the ad specifically.India and Canada currently leading online ad tax initiatives. Don't see why UK couldn't jump in. Plenty of cash to be claimed and the only effect on Joe public is less crappy online ads.
It's something that has to be thrashed out, at least that's my understanding.
I agree that the government need to move with the times, but they should do so with a pragmatism about how it actually works - the problem with a lot of proposals of this nature is it assumes the 'target' won't move and adapt, which is patently not the case.
To me it's a great way to generate more tax revenue because nobody will care - paying more for ads will only push out low cost spam and crappy ads...most advertisers would barely notice as they continually revise bid strategies against competitors.
dimots said:
Wow reading that was a breath of fresh air! Thanks 
Pleasure Following from the discussion, when facebook pushes an ad to my phone from the italian beer company that sells the lager in the pub I was in 20 minutes beforehand, it seems logical that
- this is not spam as its very targetted
- it could be subject to revenue on basis that its very much UK based income, global company or not
- facebook are reaming in income this way
- no need to introduce any competitive gradient vs other countries, same rules for all UK based ads.
-
dimots said:
sidicks said:
I am not an accountant, neither have I said anything that aligns with a belief that "it is the duty of every business to pay as little tax as it can get away with".
Do you want to go for a hat trick of misrepresentation?!
No that's fine thanks. Duly noted and added to my Sidicks fact-file.Do you want to go for a hat trick of misrepresentation?!
You're making yourself look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about.
You're making yourself look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about.
You're making yourself look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about.
You're making yourself look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about.
You're making yourself look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about.
You're making yourself look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about.
You're making yourself look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about.
You're making yourself look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about.
You're making yourself look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about.
You're making yourself look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about.
You're making yourself look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about.
You're making yourself look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about.
You're making yourself look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about.
You're making yourself look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about.
You're making yourself look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about.
andy_s said:
dimots said:
andy_s said:
dimots said:
Why do you think it would be difficult to implement? I don't understand your reasoning? Should be easy.
India and Canada currently leading online ad tax initiatives. Don't see why UK couldn't jump in. Plenty of cash to be claimed and the only effect on Joe public is less crappy online ads.
They're proposals for preventing online advertising being tax deductible, why it's difficult in practise is that it's not how generalised ad placement works - you don't pay to put your ad in the sidebar of pistonheads specifically, you pay for google [or other] to display your ad when it lines up with a viewers viewing habits and internet history/cookies. You (the advertiser) aren't placing the ad specifically.India and Canada currently leading online ad tax initiatives. Don't see why UK couldn't jump in. Plenty of cash to be claimed and the only effect on Joe public is less crappy online ads.
It's something that has to be thrashed out, at least that's my understanding.
I agree that the government need to move with the times, but they should do so with a pragmatism about how it actually works - the problem with a lot of proposals of this nature is it assumes the 'target' won't move and adapt, which is patently not the case.
To me it's a great way to generate more tax revenue because nobody will care - paying more for ads will only push out low cost spam and crappy ads...most advertisers would barely notice as they continually revise bid strategies against competitors.
Insurance tax. What happened to premiums? Recently we had the headline "Insurance costs to rise again after Autumn Statement tax increase". This must have been a shocking surprise to some.
MiniMan64 said:
PurpleAki said:
Anyone know what happened to the election thread?
I don't know.Thought I clicked on it but this appears to be the children's playground or something?
Yipper said:
Yes, amidst all the pointless Internet squabbling, most people have missed the gigantic surge in Labour in the past few days. By some latest surveys and bookies, Labour could now win and beat the Tories...
Labour are 50-1 to win a majority. They could win and of course Leicester did win the Premiership at 5000-1.Feel free to back your opinions with real money and make yourself millions!
Yipper said:
Yes, amidst all the pointless Internet squabbling, most people have missed the gigantic surge in Labour in the past few days. By some latest surveys and bookies, Labour could now win and beat the Tories...
Gigantic surge. Haha. One poll that has changed their methodology, one poll that hasn't had anything before since the last GE (and was wrong then) and one which could be an outlier or just related to Labour voters holding their noses and voting for Corbyn despite the distaste. We'll see what happens when they release their manifesto's and the Conservatives start bringing up Corbyn's dodgy past.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff