Tax heist of the century?

W1

What a surprise - Monibot shown up to be an ill-informed moron.

rjsterry

Adlerhorst wrote:

I'll be brief on this (and I did not want my first post to be about tax), but suffice to say I know a fair bit about the topic as I have worked in the CT area for ten years now, and this article is without question the worst researched article I have ever read on the topic. It is actually worse than the private eye stuff on Vodafone (which missed the point massively as well).

All the branch exemption is doing is putting companies with overseas branches in the same place as had they had an overseas subsidiary. (i.e Dividends can be repatriated to the UK and not suffer additional tax in the UK), and also putting us in line with most of the rest of Europe who have a branch exemption.

Also, as ever, anti-avoidance legislation is in place to stop any flagrant abuse.

Also whilst I am not it any way a tory voter in any way shape or form, it should be noted that CT reform (which the branch exemption is a part of) was originally started under the last government, and the branch exemption idea has been kicking around for about two / three years now. To try and say this is a tory thing is utterly utterly wrong. Both parties were / are behind it.

What, not even a little bit?

I suspected as much. Monbiot's articles frequently seem to suffer from an eagerness to nail big business/oil/rightwing politics at the expense of getting the details right.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

What, not even a little bit?

I suspected as much. Monbiot's articles frequently seem to suffer from an eagerness to nail big business/oil/rightwing politics at the expense of getting the details right.

Well, they've got to print something for me to line my dog's bed with.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

What a surprise - Monibot shown up to be an ill-informed moron.

To be fair to Monbiot - who is to say the above posts are any more accurate? It fits with your view though - so they must be.

Northwind

dhope wrote:

Have you seen the price of petrol lately :shock: Can't even stage a good old fashioned riot on the cheap these days...

I've switched to diesel bombs, sure the diesel's more expensive per litre but I can throw them 50% further.

Harveytile

What's this "tax" you talk of?

W1

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

What a surprise - Monibot shown up to be an ill-informed moron.

To be fair to Monbiot - who is to say the above posts are any more accurate? It fits with your view though - so they must be.

The posts above seem to appear to know what they're talking about, whereas Monibot is rehashing hand-wringing rubbish he want to be true and writing for an audience that wants to hear it.

MonkeyMonster

actually what is more surprising for me is that W1 just launched an attack at the guardian... if I am interpreting your above comments...

i often find we think similarily though you are slightly... more vocal than I shall we say

Goes to show the newspaper you read or hate MIGHT not mean you're a total dumbass...

However all believers [not all readers are believers] of the Daily Mail can eat pavement alla American History X

W1

MonkeyMonster wrote:

actually what is more surprising for me is that W1 just launched an attack at the guardian... if I am interpreting your above comments...

i often find we think similarily though you are slightly... more vocal than I shall we say

Goes to show the newspaper you read or hate MIGHT not mean you're a total dumbass...

However all believers [not all readers are believers] of the Daily Mail can eat pavement alla American History X

I think - but I'm not sure - that you might be calling me a dumbass! And you may have a point.

Suffice to say I can't stand the Guardian or the DM. Monibot particularly makes my teeth itch.

I find it hard to read any paper whilst scalping along the Embankment anyway.

eh

Article just sums up to me why I don't buy papers anymore, as the articles on both left and right sides are written by jurno's who don't understand what the hell they are talking about, simply political point scoring.

The UK will be a far better place once the likes of the Guardian and Mail fail.

Aside: Sure someone who posted on here said he was a personal freind of Monibot, maybe they could come to his rescue.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

I find it hard to read any paper whilst scalping along the Embankment anyway.

Oooo bring out the big guns!

---

It's no secret that the Tories are pro business, and have less time for employees. It's a little dated marxist view, but it still largely rings true.

You can hear it in the rhetoric about people 'worknig for free' and making it easier for businesses to hire and fire etc.

It's also no secret that the tories get a lot of party funding from the City - as far as I am aware, considerably more than other parties (though I would imagine that balance has changed slighty post-blair).

What else would you expect? It'd be surprising if the party didn't have the support of the City, but they clearly do, and they're pandering to their base.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

I find it hard to read any paper whilst scalping along the Embankment anyway.

Oooo bring out the big guns!

---

It's no secret that the Tories are pro business, and have less time for employees. It's a little dated marxist view, but it still largely rings true.

You can hear it in the rhetoric about people 'worknig for free' and making it easier for businesses to hire and fire etc.

It's also no secret that the tories get a lot of party funding from the City - as far as I am aware, considerably more than other parties (though I would imagine that balance has changed slighty post-blair).

What else would you expect? It'd be surprising if the party didn't have the support of the City, but they clearly do, and they're pandering to their base.

Except - if you read the other posts - this was a Labour idea from 2009.....

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

I find it hard to read any paper whilst scalping along the Embankment anyway.

Oooo bring out the big guns!

---

It's no secret that the Tories are pro business, and have less time for employees. It's a little dated marxist view, but it still largely rings true.

You can hear it in the rhetoric about people 'worknig for free' and making it easier for businesses to hire and fire etc.

It's also no secret that the tories get a lot of party funding from the City - as far as I am aware, considerably more than other parties (though I would imagine that balance has changed slighty post-blair).

What else would you expect? It'd be surprising if the party didn't have the support of the City, but they clearly do, and they're pandering to their base.

Except - if you read the other posts - this was a Labour idea from 2009.....

What's your point? They're not in power now...?

UndercoverElephant

W1 wrote:

Except - if you read the other posts - this was a Labour idea from 2009.....

Except, if you read the minutia, this goes way further than the Labour policy in a neat and tidy, "This was all the last lot's idea" way. Clever, no?

rjsterry

eh wrote:

Article just sums up to me why I don't buy papers anymore, as the articles on both left and right sides are written by jurno's who don't understand what the hell they are talking about, simply political point scoring.

The UK will be a far better place once the likes of the Guardian and Mail fail.

Aside: Sure someone who posted on here said he was a personal freind of Monibot, maybe they could come to his rescue.

Political point scoring, eh? Which is different from your posts against anything leftwing because...

The Guardian have a fair few rightwing commentators contribute to the Comment section, unlike the DM. Just because you disagree with one of their regulars (he's usually in on a Tuesday as the lead article in the Comment section if you need to avoid him), it's hardly a reason to write off the whole paper.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

I find it hard to read any paper whilst scalping along the Embankment anyway.

Oooo bring out the big guns!

---

It's no secret that the Tories are pro business, and have less time for employees. It's a little dated marxist view, but it still largely rings true.

You can hear it in the rhetoric about people 'worknig for free' and making it easier for businesses to hire and fire etc.

It's also no secret that the tories get a lot of party funding from the City - as far as I am aware, considerably more than other parties (though I would imagine that balance has changed slighty post-blair).

What else would you expect? It'd be surprising if the party didn't have the support of the City, but they clearly do, and they're pandering to their base.

Except - if you read the other posts - this was a Labour idea from 2009.....

What's your point? They're not in power now...?

My point is - you can harp on about how it's all cushy between the tories and the City, but in this instance it was a Labour idea and Labour would have done the same thing. So are you going to have a moan about them being cushy with the City too?

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

My point is - you can harp on about how it's all cushy between the tories and the City, but in this instance it was a Labour idea and Labour would have done the same thing. So are you going to have a moan about them being cushy with the City too?

Pretty much.

The point I guess I was making was that it's no surprise, since we definitely know the City loves the tories.

At least, in the office I sit they do. And the people I meet in the bars round here ... etc etc

I'd also suggest that Labour is likely to be a little more hostile to the City in future - since i think many of the Blarites, let alone those further left, feel they gave the City a good chance and they spoiled it.

Greg T

Financial services 10% share of UK GDP is higher than other major economies.
UK financial services employment picked up by 17,000 to reach 1.01m in the six months to September 2010.
Over 3,000 people are employed in financial services in 62 parliamentary constituencies, nearly 10% of all constituencies; with more than 1,000 people employed in financial services in 185 constituencies, 28% of the total.
Financial services generated a trade surplus of £40bn in 2009, expected to fall to around £36bn in 2010.
UK companies' earnings from FDI overseas, £8.2bn in 2009, have consistently exceeded foreign companies earnings from FDI in the UK, minus £2.5bn in 2009.
Out of 953 foreign companies authorised by the FSA 420 are US-owned, while in total there are 28 countries with ownership of at least 6 FSA authorised firms.
Tax take of UK financial services firms dropped to £53.4bn in 2009/10: still accounting for 11% of UK tax receipts.

http://www.thecityuk.com/what-we-do/rep ... -2010.aspx

Does anyone think an industry that pays 11% of UK tax receipts and contributes 10% of GDP should be discouraged?

dhope

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

My point is - you can harp on about how it's all cushy between the tories and the City, but in this instance it was a Labour idea and Labour would have done the same thing. So are you going to have a moan about them being cushy with the City too?

Pretty much.

The point I guess I was making was that it's no surprise, since we definitely know the City loves the tories.

At least, in the office I sit they do. And the people I meet in the bars round here ... etc etc

I'd also suggest that Labour is likely to be a little more hostile to the City in future - since i think many of the Blarites, let alone those further left, feel they gave the City a good chance and they spoiled it.

Not from my experience, as someone that works at an investment bank. Seems to be a fairly even/healthy mix of posh toffs and scummy students (naturally there's no middle ground).
Tories love the tories certainly. If by 'the City' you mean tories that work in the City then yes.

/Tautology

MonkeyMonster

W1 wrote:

I think - but I'm not sure - that you might be calling me a dumbass! And you may have a point.

On the contrary, quite the opposite I like playing with double negatives accurately.

rick_chasey

dhope wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

My point is - you can harp on about how it's all cushy between the tories and the City, but in this instance it was a Labour idea and Labour would have done the same thing. So are you going to have a moan about them being cushy with the City too?

Pretty much.

The point I guess I was making was that it's no surprise, since we definitely know the City loves the tories.

At least, in the office I sit they do. And the people I meet in the bars round here ... etc etc

I'd also suggest that Labour is likely to be a little more hostile to the City in future - since i think many of the Blarites, let alone those further left, feel they gave the City a good chance and they spoiled it.

Not from my experience, as someone that works at an investment bank. Seems to be a fairly even/healthy mix of posh toffs and scummy students (naturally there's no middle ground).
Tories love the tories certainly. If by 'the City' you mean tories that work in the City then yes.

/Tautology

:roll: Let me rephrase - the people who have a lot of money to throw about (and to be taxed) - an unsurprising number of which work in the City - are likely, and do, suppor the Tories - that's pretty standard.

Stevo_666

UndercoverElephant wrote:

As usual, you can't expect journos to do a detailed analysis - even if they did understand it, they've got a story to sell.

from the draft proposal itself:

Da Government wrote:

2.16 The Government will extend the opt-in exemption regime for large and medium companies to all countries and territories, including those with which the UK has no tax treaty. The Government notes that this goes beyond the foreign branch exemption regimes of many other countries.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/corpora ... xation.pdf

Current rules may have a lower limit...[/quote]

Many - not all so, Mr Guardian journo made an incorrect statement, didn't he. But the protection against artificial diversion of profits is still there. If you read section 2.22 of the link you found, you'll see that.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

As a confirmed lefty Guardian reader, even I take Monbiot's stuff with a pinch of salt. Bottom line is what net effect will it have on UK tax receipts from medium-sized and large corporations - i.e. will we the government be even more short of money than they were? As Stevo 666 has some knowledge of this part of the world IIRC, what does he think?

The Government usually publishes what effect it forecasts it will have on tax Govt revenues, will try to dig that out when I have time to check.

It's usually a trade off of some sort over time and between taxes - by making the UK more friendly towards big/international business they hope that more of them locate here (or at least stop leaving!)which increases things like income tax and NI receipts and also VAT when the people they employ here go spend. Also over time, if the level of UK activity increases due to this, UK corporation tax receipts may increase. Which they hope offsets any short term losses in corporate tax. In the end it depends on forecasts - so sometimes it's a bet.

However as you can see, places like Hong Kong and Switzerland have hardly beggared themselves by consistently imposing low tax rates on companies....

dilemna

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

As a confirmed lefty Guardian reader, even I take Monbiot's stuff with a pinch of salt. Bottom line is what net effect will it have on UK tax receipts from medium-sized and large corporations - i.e. will we the government be even more short of money than they were? As Stevo 666 has some knowledge of this part of the world IIRC, what does he think?

The Government usually publishes what effect it forecasts it will have on tax Govt revenues, will try to dig that out when I have time to check.

It's usually a trade off of some sort over time and between taxes - by making the UK more friendly towards big/international business they hope that more of them locate here (or at least stop leaving!)which increases things like income tax and NI receipts and also VAT when the people they employ here go spend. Also over time, if the level of UK activity increases due to this, UK corporation tax receipts may increase. Which they hope offsets any short term losses in corporate tax. In the end it depends on forecasts - so sometimes it's a bet.

However as you can see, places like Hong Kong and Switzerland have hardly beggared themselves by consistently imposing low tax rates on companies....[/quote]

No, they raise revenue through other avenues of taxation.

Stevo_666

dilemna wrote:

No, they raise revenue through other avenues of taxation.

Let's see shall we?
UK - link here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/tax-receipts-and-taxpayers.pdf
The UK corporation tax take was less than 10% of the total tax take in the last reported tax year

Hong Kong: link here: http://www.ird.gov.hk/eng/abo/rev.htm
The HK corporation tax take was over 40% of the total tax take in the last reported tax year.

So you're wrong, HK makes more revenue from corporate tax than any other form of tax - unlike the UK.

As I mentioned before before - if you lower the corporate tax rate and make the tax environment more friendly, perversely it often increases the tax receipts over time as businesses come to your country. Unfortunately a lot of people just don't get it.

Le Commentateur

It's an economic inducement to lock in the banks so they will be less able to play the threatening-to-leave tactic when the Government attempts some other thing that they don't like, such as the current "fury" over levies on bonuses.

Now the Government can argue there's little pure economic reason to relocate the businesses to Switzerland or wherever.

W1

Stevo 666 wrote:

As I mentioned before before - if you lower the corporate tax rate and make the tax environment more friendly, perversely it often increases the tax receipts over time as businesses come to your country. Unfortunately a lot of people just don't get it.

Ditto the argument for flat tax. But can you imagine the roar of lycra being twisted were the fascists to suggest such a thing!

sketchley

"transfer of wealth from the poor"

Oxymoron innit?

notsoblue

Stevo 666 wrote:

As I mentioned before before - if you lower the corporate tax rate and make the tax environment more friendly, perversely it often increases the tax receipts over time as businesses come to your country. Unfortunately a lot of people just don't get it.

Worked for Ireland.

rick_chasey

dhope wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

My point is - you can harp on about how it's all cushy between the tories and the City, but in this instance it was a Labour idea and Labour would have done the same thing. So are you going to have a moan about them being cushy with the City too?

Pretty much.

The point I guess I was making was that it's no surprise, since we definitely know the City loves the tories.

At least, in the office I sit they do. And the people I meet in the bars round here ... etc etc

I'd also suggest that Labour is likely to be a little more hostile to the City in future - since i think many of the Blarites, let alone those further left, feel they gave the City a good chance and they spoiled it.

Not from my experience, as someone that works at an investment bank. Seems to be a fairly even/healthy mix of posh toffs and scummy students (naturally there's no middle ground).
Tories love the tories certainly. If by 'the City' you mean tories that work in the City then yes.

/Tautology

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12401049

Told ya!