Shift of Corporate Tax Laws

[Roboraver]

Am sure this was not in any manifesto: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/0...

[JagLover]

There has been a quiet exodus in recent years of companies with significant overseas operations relocating to more tax friendly climes.

In a globalised economy you have to reduce taxes on the most mobile agents in the economy in order to remain competitive. Even at 24% compare our Corporation tax rate with that of Ireland for example.

[Fittster]

JagLover said:

There has been a quiet exodus in recent years of companies with significant overseas operations relocating to more tax friendly climes.

In a globalised economy you have to reduce taxes on the most mobile agents in the economy in order to remain competitive. Even at 24% compare our Corporation tax rate with that of Ireland for example.

This would be Ireland that can't raise enough money to pay it's bills?

Yes, I'm aware of laffer curve theory.

[Roboraver]

But I was under the assumption that every major company was suppose to pay more tax.....not less.

[Fittster]

Roboraver said:

But I was under the assumption that every major company was suppose to pay more tax.....not less.

Supposed my whom?

Companies will normally do all they can to reduce their tax bills. The question is how much of a race to the bottom should tax authorities indulge in to ensure they pay tax in the country?

To be there doesn't appear to be a simple answer to the question. If the UK undercuts Ireland, what's to stop the Irish or another nation dropping their levels of tax again? Do we keep reducing corporation tax until the level in the UK is the lowest in the world?

[theaxe]

TheArticle said:

By the time this government is done, we'll be lucky if the banks and corporations pay anything at all.

TheArticle said:

The new legislation will create a powerful incentive to shift business out of this country and into nations with lower corporate tax rates

I'm not sure I understand this, how can both of these be true?

[SplatSpeed]

it sounds good on paper

but allowing expenses against non taxed assets is the worry to me

but should make the UK more attractive to have HQ's here

what would the UK do without banks?

[bobbylondonuk]

So huge multinational businesses will shift their headquarters to this small little island and pay uk taxes rather than shifting out to another low tax economy??? So what is the problem?

[JagLover]

Fittster said:

This would be Ireland that can't raise enough money to pay it's bills?

Yes, I'm aware of laffer curve theory.

This is not exactly the laffer curve, which is mainly dealing with incentives to work and willingness to indulge in tax planning, but about the international competitiveness of the tax system for large multi-nationals who have a choice about where to base themselves.

As for Ireland their fiscal position was improved by the number of companies willing to base themselves there. Their problem was overspending in the boom years (as was ours) and the costs of bailing out the Irish banks.

[tinman0]

Fittster said:

To be there doesn't appear to be a simple answer to the question. If the UK undercuts Ireland, what's to stop the Irish or another nation dropping their levels of tax again? Do we keep reducing corporation tax until the level in the UK is the lowest in the world?

It's a start.

It's a disgrace that company profits get taxed in the first place. Do companies vote? No. Do they require the use of the health service? No. Police? Not really.

Just an easy target that doesn't lose politicians votes.

[Fittster]

tinman0 said:

Fittster said:

To be there doesn't appear to be a simple answer to the question. If the UK undercuts Ireland, what's to stop the Irish or another nation dropping their levels of tax again? Do we keep reducing corporation tax until the level in the UK is the lowest in the world?

It's a start.

It's a disgrace that company profits get taxed in the first place. Do companies vote? No. Do they require the use of the health service? No. Police? Not really.

Just an easy target that doesn't lose politicians votes.

Do they use infrastructure? Do they take advantage of staff educated by the state?

Do they use the police? Of course they do.

[SplatSpeed]

Fittster said:

Do they use infrastructure? Do they take advantage of staff educated by the state?

Do they use the police? Of course they do.

Roads paid for in fuel duty

education is locally controlled or should be, higher education is paid for by the student now!

police paid locally (rates council charge).

don't see your point

[tinman0]

Fittster said:

Do they use infrastructure? Do they take advantage of staff educated by the state?

Do they use the police? Of course they do.

All of those things are services to people, not companies.

[Fittster]

SplatSpeed said:

Fittster said:

Do they use infrastructure? Do they take advantage of staff educated by the state?

Do they use the police? Of course they do.

Roads paid for in fuel duty

education is locally controlled or should be, higher education is paid for by the student now!

police paid locally (rates council charge).

don't see your point

Let's go back to something simple. Do you think a company should be a legal entity in it's own right?

[SplatSpeed]

Fittster said:

Let's go back to something simple. Do you think a company should be a legal entity in it's own right?

No that is an american view according to the supreme court last year. Gave companys the same rights as persons.

I beleive the share holders should pay income tax on money made. selling shares, dividends.

[poo at Paul's]

theaxe said:

I'm not sure I understand this, how can both of these be true?

I think it means nothing at all "paid to the UK tax authorities".

So they mean Corps will keep a shell business here, as a Head office admin centre, stick all their staff (or recruit new) off in a foreign clime with a low tax rate, then offset all their overseas expenses vs their small UK operation, and end up not paying any UK tax, merely the low rate in each operating country, whilst still able to repatriate the profits back to the UK.

It doesn't seem terribly UK centric, surely tax policies would be better modified to encourage UK companies, (and others)to be setting up in the UK, employing people here, even having their dtaff shipped in at least they will spend cash here, and pay emplyment taxes here...(hopefully)

So seems a pretty daft overall policy tbh.

[SplatSpeed]

poo at Paul's said:

I think it means nothing at all "paid to the UK tax authorities".

So they mean Corps will keep a shell business here, as a Head office admin centre, stick all their staff (or recruit new) off in a foreign clime with a low tax rate, then offset all their overseas expenses vs their small UK operation, and end up not paying any UK tax, merely the low rate in each operating country, whilst still able to repatriate the profits back to the UK.

It doesn't seem terribly UK centric, surely tax policies would be better modified to encourage UK companies, (and others)to be setting up in the UK, employing people here, even having their dtaff shipped in at least they will spend cash here, and pay emplyment taxes here...(hopefully)

So seems a pretty daft overall policy tbh.

the shares are usually traded where the head office is.

[Fittster]

SplatSpeed said:

Fittster said:

Let's go back to something simple. Do you think a company should be a legal entity in it's own right?

No that is an american view according to the supreme court last year. Gave companys the same rights as persons.

I beleive the share holders should pay income tax on money made. selling shares, dividends.

So if the negligent actions of a company result in a death all shareholders should be up before the beak?

[SplatSpeed]

Fittster said:

So if the negligent actions of a company result in a death all shareholders should be up before the beak?

companys don't kill people, executives do!