LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

coopster_the_1st

kingstongraham said:

Johnson had a prepared answer to the question about the Brexit vote in PMQs today, and he was going to use it. Had to get it in once he realised the question wasn't going to be asked.

As the weeks go on Starmer is getting exposed as increasingly untrustworthy and inept. It's going to take a radical change of direction from him to win the trust of Labour Brexit voters and right now he is doing nothing to win them back.

pangolin

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

Johnson had a prepared answer to the question about the Brexit vote in PMQs today, and he was going to use it. Had to get it in once he realised the question wasn't going to be asked.

As the weeks go on Johnson is getting exposed as increasingly untrustworthy and inept. It's going to take a radical change of direction from him to keep the trust of Labour Brexit voters and right now he is doing nothing to keep them onside.

FTFY

coopster_the_1st

pangolin said:

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

Johnson had a prepared answer to the question about the Brexit vote in PMQs today, and he was going to use it. Had to get it in once he realised the question wasn't going to be asked.

As the weeks go on Johnson is getting exposed as increasingly untrustworthy and inept. It's going to take a radical change of direction from him to keep the trust of Labour Brexit voters and right now he is doing nothing to keep them onside.

FTFY

If you believe this then you'll be getting another 5 years of Conservative government. I'm not the one who has a problem with this outcome

kingstongraham

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

Johnson had a prepared answer to the question about the Brexit vote in PMQs today, and he was going to use it. Had to get it in once he realised the question wasn't going to be asked.

As the weeks go on Starmer is getting exposed as increasingly untrustworthy and inept. It's going to take a radical change of direction from him to win the trust of Labour Brexit voters and right now he is doing nothing to win them back.

What does that have do do with Johnson answering a question he wasn't asked?

john80

Stevo_666 said:

john80 said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3655850

Nowhere else to put this but

Ending Corporate Tax Avoidance and Tax Competition: A Plan to Collect the Tax Deficit of Multinationals

I could suggest somewhere...

However it's an 18 page report so you need to explain concisely in your own words what your point is.

Having read the first five pages it is pretty logical. Big US company gets taxed say 21% on all worldwide earnings if the local rate is equal or more than this. So the Irish rate is 5% so Apple owes the remaining 16% to the US or it loses the abililty to sells products in the US. This makes Apple question the point of operating out of Ireland and allows Ireland to increase corporation tax. As always it has to be lead by big nations where loss to their domestic market would be a disaster for the business. This is not something a small nation can do as they dont have the clout.

Thanks John, but I've still no idea what Ricks own point is. Rick needs to set out his view if he wants a debate on this.

As for your take on it, I have a few questions:
1. Which country's tax rate should be used as the reference rate to calculate the top up? Problem is unless the world agrees, it will be a 'race to the top' determined by the greediest government or one with an agenda, which then has the power to blackmail a global corporation with a domestic tax rate change.
2. How will the calculation be agreed given there are differing accounting standards in many countries which will yield cifferent percentages?
3. How are local income taxes like US State taxes which vary in each state to be taken into account?
4. How likely do you think it is that (say) the US would stop one of its own commercial 'champions' like the US tech giants selling in its home market? Or any country denying consumers access to say Google, Apple, Facebook or Amazon? Or how about if this is a utility group supplying water or a supermarket group and is made to stop supplying water/food until it pays enough tax?
5. How does this account for the fundamental concept of territoriality in tax - that tax is levied on a territorial basis on profits arising in that country at a rate and based on rules set in that country?
6. Why does the article ignore all other taxes apart from corporation tax, which makes up no more than 10% of tax revenues overall?

The theory sounds nice to those with an agenda. But looks like it was written by a bunch of US academics and as you can see from just my initial thoughts based on what you wrote, the proposal is misguided, hopelessly impractical and unworkable in the real world.

1. We have tried the race to the bottom so a bit of race to the top would do no harm and i am sure a balance could be struck. The rate could be set by the US as most western countries not actively seeking investment through tax competition are similar.
2. The article is broad brushbon this bit given it is the larger country with a large domestic market driving the process the it is logical to use their process as lets face it does the opinion of the Cayman islands matter.
3. It could bebone rate and in the case of the US let them compete for domestic business through altering their local rates as the federal government would be best placed to step in if the next Cayman Island turned out to be Idaho.
4. Whilst it is tempting to think that Amazon would try to call the bluff of the government by threatening to shut down all US operations their management might have a tough time selling that to their shareholders. After all they only pay tax on profits and 75% of a pound in profit delivers a higher share price or dividend than no profit because you chose to shut the business down. Should they choose not to pay then they will find that governments have pretty big pockets for litigation and failing this the ability to change the law.
5. It merely adds to the territorial argument and does not remove it as it is a top up rate. In Apples example the Irish tax coul be over 21% and Apple would pay nothing extra to the US.
6. It ignores it as it is looking at corporation tax. It is pretty hard to dodge local business rates, vat or NI contributions in most countries so this is not an issue.

As always it is a nice idea and it would assist the tax takes of many countries with likely improvements in services for the citizens of that nation. It is not likely as in the US i would suspect that there is significant lobbying power available to defeat any notion of this. Being dificult to implement does not make it a bad idea though.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

It's not my argument.

I thought it was an interesting study in the context of prior discussions.

This isn't debating society. We're not arguing for the sake of it (at least, I'm not), and it's not judged.

OK, thanks. I may well read it when I have time but as you haven't made any points yourself, there's currently nothing for me to reply to.

Awful lot of replies considering that

I was replying to John80 who did take the time to explain how he saw it.

Stevo_666

john80 said:

Stevo_666 said:

john80 said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3655850

Nowhere else to put this but

Ending Corporate Tax Avoidance and Tax Competition: A Plan to Collect the Tax Deficit of Multinationals

I could suggest somewhere...

However it's an 18 page report so you need to explain concisely in your own words what your point is.

Having read the first five pages it is pretty logical. Big US company gets taxed say 21% on all worldwide earnings if the local rate is equal or more than this. So the Irish rate is 5% so Apple owes the remaining 16% to the US or it loses the abililty to sells products in the US. This makes Apple question the point of operating out of Ireland and allows Ireland to increase corporation tax. As always it has to be lead by big nations where loss to their domestic market would be a disaster for the business. This is not something a small nation can do as they dont have the clout.

Thanks John, but I've still no idea what Ricks own point is. Rick needs to set out his view if he wants a debate on this.

As for your take on it, I have a few questions:
1. Which country's tax rate should be used as the reference rate to calculate the top up? Problem is unless the world agrees, it will be a 'race to the top' determined by the greediest government or one with an agenda, which then has the power to blackmail a global corporation with a domestic tax rate change.
2. How will the calculation be agreed given there are differing accounting standards in many countries which will yield cifferent percentages?
3. How are local income taxes like US State taxes which vary in each state to be taken into account?
4. How likely do you think it is that (say) the US would stop one of its own commercial 'champions' like the US tech giants selling in its home market? Or any country denying consumers access to say Google, Apple, Facebook or Amazon? Or how about if this is a utility group supplying water or a supermarket group and is made to stop supplying water/food until it pays enough tax?
5. How does this account for the fundamental concept of territoriality in tax - that tax is levied on a territorial basis on profits arising in that country at a rate and based on rules set in that country?
6. Why does the article ignore all other taxes apart from corporation tax, which makes up no more than 10% of tax revenues overall?

The theory sounds nice to those with an agenda. But looks like it was written by a bunch of US academics and as you can see from just my initial thoughts based on what you wrote, the proposal is misguided, hopelessly impractical and unworkable in the real world.

1. We have tried the race to the bottom so a bit of race to the top would do no harm and i am sure a balance could be struck. The rate could be set by the US as most western countries not actively seeking investment through tax competition are similar.
2. The article is broad brushbon this bit given it is the larger country with a large domestic market driving the process the it is logical to use their process as lets face it does the opinion of the Cayman islands matter.
3. It could bebone rate and in the case of the US let them compete for domestic business through altering their local rates as the federal government would be best placed to step in if the next Cayman Island turned out to be Idaho.
4. Whilst it is tempting to think that Amazon would try to call the bluff of the government by threatening to shut down all US operations their management might have a tough time selling that to their shareholders. After all they only pay tax on profits and 75% of a pound in profit delivers a higher share price or dividend than no profit because you chose to shut the business down. Should they choose not to pay then they will find that governments have pretty big pockets for litigation and failing this the ability to change the law.
5. It merely adds to the territorial argument and does not remove it as it is a top up rate. In Apples example the Irish tax coul be over 21% and Apple would pay nothing extra to the US.
6. It ignores it as it is looking at corporation tax. It is pretty hard to dodge local business rates, vat or NI contributions in most countries so this is not an issue.

As always it is a nice idea and it would assist the tax takes of many countries with likely improvements in services for the citizens of that nation. It is not likely as in the US i would suspect that there is significant lobbying power available to defeat any notion of this. Being dificult to implement does not make it a bad idea though.

1. The US has recently cut its rate from 35% to 21%. Look at the trend across countries generally - it is going the opposite way to what you propose. Also, it only takes a few countries to break ranks and the whole thing fails: it would be too tempting not to, given the potential investment on offer. So you are hopeful, but not realistic.

2. That doesn't address my point. Countries use many different accounting standards and you are asking them to use one, feat that has evaded the accounting world for decades. How practically can that happen in your opinion?

3. Missing the point. Which is that countries such as US, Germany, Canada, Switzwerland have many different tax rates within their own countries. How does that fit with using a single country tax rate to determine the rate to use?

4. It's not about the likes of Amazon calling the bluff of governments. You said that governments would stop them from selling. Likewise, how does that work for companies supplying essentials, say water or food: or (say) one that operates nuclear powr stations - and what would happen when the government stops them from operating? That one needs thinking through more.

5. Ireland made it very clear they don't want a 21% tax rate and sided with Apple against the EU. That Ireland's choice as a sovereign nation and it is not unique in this respect given the downward trend in corporation tax rates. So what makes you think that is a realistic goal?

6. Other taxes are clearly relevant as they contribute over 90% of tax revenues and a large proportion of these other taxesare paid by directly by businesses, or indirectly by the people they employ. I explained upthread that corporate tax is often used as a way to attract business and investment (as I have seen in my job over the years fyi) and that that benefits flow from the VAT, income tax, business rates etc that the new business and investment generates.


The fact the article uses that well known lazy leftie generalisation 'a race to the bottom' is a clear indication of the bias of the authors.

Countries do have laws that allow them to tax foreign profit indirectly but overall the idea that that a company can be shut down because it does not pay a rate of tax determined by a different country is ridiculous. Nice theory, pity about the reality.

john80

Stevo_666 said:

john80 said:

Stevo_666 said:

john80 said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3655850

Nowhere else to put this but

Ending Corporate Tax Avoidance and Tax Competition: A Plan to Collect the Tax Deficit of Multinationals

I could suggest somewhere...

However it's an 18 page report so you need to explain concisely in your own words what your point is.

Having read the first five pages it is pretty logical. Big US company gets taxed say 21% on all worldwide earnings if the local rate is equal or more than this. So the Irish rate is 5% so Apple owes the remaining 16% to the US or it loses the abililty to sells products in the US. This makes Apple question the point of operating out of Ireland and allows Ireland to increase corporation tax. As always it has to be lead by big nations where loss to their domestic market would be a disaster for the business. This is not something a small nation can do as they dont have the clout.

Thanks John, but I've still no idea what Ricks own point is. Rick needs to set out his view if he wants a debate on this.

As for your take on it, I have a few questions:
1. Which country's tax rate should be used as the reference rate to calculate the top up? Problem is unless the world agrees, it will be a 'race to the top' determined by the greediest government or one with an agenda, which then has the power to blackmail a global corporation with a domestic tax rate change.
2. How will the calculation be agreed given there are differing accounting standards in many countries which will yield cifferent percentages?
3. How are local income taxes like US State taxes which vary in each state to be taken into account?
4. How likely do you think it is that (say) the US would stop one of its own commercial 'champions' like the US tech giants selling in its home market? Or any country denying consumers access to say Google, Apple, Facebook or Amazon? Or how about if this is a utility group supplying water or a supermarket group and is made to stop supplying water/food until it pays enough tax?
5. How does this account for the fundamental concept of territoriality in tax - that tax is levied on a territorial basis on profits arising in that country at a rate and based on rules set in that country?
6. Why does the article ignore all other taxes apart from corporation tax, which makes up no more than 10% of tax revenues overall?

The theory sounds nice to those with an agenda. But looks like it was written by a bunch of US academics and as you can see from just my initial thoughts based on what you wrote, the proposal is misguided, hopelessly impractical and unworkable in the real world.

1. We have tried the race to the bottom so a bit of race to the top would do no harm and i am sure a balance could be struck. The rate could be set by the US as most western countries not actively seeking investment through tax competition are similar.
2. The article is broad brushbon this bit given it is the larger country with a large domestic market driving the process the it is logical to use their process as lets face it does the opinion of the Cayman islands matter.
3. It could bebone rate and in the case of the US let them compete for domestic business through altering their local rates as the federal government would be best placed to step in if the next Cayman Island turned out to be Idaho.
4. Whilst it is tempting to think that Amazon would try to call the bluff of the government by threatening to shut down all US operations their management might have a tough time selling that to their shareholders. After all they only pay tax on profits and 75% of a pound in profit delivers a higher share price or dividend than no profit because you chose to shut the business down. Should they choose not to pay then they will find that governments have pretty big pockets for litigation and failing this the ability to change the law.
5. It merely adds to the territorial argument and does not remove it as it is a top up rate. In Apples example the Irish tax coul be over 21% and Apple would pay nothing extra to the US.
6. It ignores it as it is looking at corporation tax. It is pretty hard to dodge local business rates, vat or NI contributions in most countries so this is not an issue.

As always it is a nice idea and it would assist the tax takes of many countries with likely improvements in services for the citizens of that nation. It is not likely as in the US i would suspect that there is significant lobbying power available to defeat any notion of this. Being dificult to implement does not make it a bad idea though.

1. The US has recently cut its rate from 35% to 21%. Look at the trend across countries generally - it is going the opposite way to what you propose. Also, it only takes a few countries to break ranks and the whole thing fails: it would be too tempting not to, given the potential investment on offer. So you are hopeful, but not realistic.

2. That doesn't address my point. Countries use many different accounting standards and you are asking them to use one, feat that has evaded the accounting world for decades. How practically can that happen in your opinion?

3. Missing the point. Which is that countries such as US, Germany, Canada, Switzwerland have many different tax rates within their own countries. How does that fit with using a single country tax rate to determine the rate to use?

4. It's not about the likes of Amazon calling the bluff of governments. You said that governments would stop them from selling. Likewise, how does that work for companies supplying essentials, say water or food: or (say) one that operates nuclear powr stations - and what would happen when the government stops them from operating? That one needs thinking through more.

5. Ireland made it very clear they don't want a 21% tax rate and sided with Apple against the EU. That Ireland's choice as a sovereign nation and it is not unique in this respect given the downward trend in corporation tax rates. So what makes you think that is a realistic goal?

6. Other taxes are clearly relevant as they contribute over 90% of tax revenues and a large proportion of these other taxesare paid by directly by businesses, or indirectly by the people they employ. I explained upthread that corporate tax is often used as a way to attract business and investment (as I have seen in my job over the years fyi) and that that benefits flow from the VAT, income tax, business rates etc that the new business and investment generates.


The fact the article uses that well known lazy leftie generalisation 'a race to the bottom' is a clear indication of the bias of the authors.

Countries do have laws that allow them to tax foreign profit indirectly but overall the idea that that a company can be shut down because it does not pay a rate of tax determined by a different country is ridiculous. Nice theory, pity about the reality.

The article is not really calling for closing down companies but rather asking the to pay the tax difference between their home nation with their main market and that of the competitive tax environment that they choose to use for convenience. For sure the UK trying to shut Apple down or fining them probably is ridiculous the US not so much. If i was teleported into an entirely different system where i was a dictator of the US i think i could bring this change in and probably even afford to pay for universal healthcare. Bezos would be raging mind😀

Not all countries have the same business model. One made up analogy would be an independent Scotland offering a lower tax rate to entice companies whilst not paying for any defence spending as they take the political view they dont have to as if Scotland was invaded or attacked it would likely be in Englands interest to defend the UK for their self interest. You often use technical arguments yet fail to acknowledge that humans make the rules.

surrey_commuter

Anybody else concerned about how dependent the Tories are on Russian donations?

Dorset_Boy

Corporation Tax based on the profits of international businesses is a busted flush, when those profits can be manipulated by the international business. The logical solution for international businesses is a move from a tax on the profit declared in a country (which is manipulated to reduce profit in 'higher rated countries' and increase profit in 'lower rated countries'), and move to a tax on the turnover of the company in the country. This is not the same as VAT as it would not be a point of sale tax, but a tax calculated using the audited accounts of the business.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

Anybody else concerned about how dependent the Tories are on Russian donations?

It's not a great look, though, in fairness, I suspect a decent proportion of the high profile donators are doing it specifically as a type of protection...

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

Anybody else concerned about how dependent the Tories are on Russian donations?

I do find it bizarre that the same PM can on the one hand rally international condemnation of the Salisbury incident, and who would obviously be aware of documented Russian attempts at electoral interference, would then happily sit down to dinner and pose for 'girls' night out' photos with people so closely linked to that same government that she held responsible.

kingstongraham

surrey_commuter said:

Anybody else concerned about how dependent the Tories are on Russian donations?

Russian and other large donations - after the Robert Jenrick scandal broke they were pretty open about how you can buy access and influence. Is that one still going?

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

Anybody else concerned about how dependent the Tories are on Russian donations?

I do find it bizarre that the same PM can on the one hand rally international condemnation of the Salisbury incident, and who would obviously be aware of documented Russian attempts at electoral interference, would then happily sit down to dinner and pose for 'girls' night out' photos with people so closely linked to that same government that she held responsible.

I have read that we are also dependent upon the sheer weight of money coming into the country

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

Anybody else concerned about how dependent the Tories are on Russian donations?

I do find it bizarre that the same PM can on the one hand rally international condemnation of the Salisbury incident, and who would obviously be aware of documented Russian attempts at electoral interference, would then happily sit down to dinner and pose for 'girls' night out' photos with people so closely linked to that same government that she held responsible.

I have read that we are also dependent upon the sheer weight of money coming into the country

The City has made a lot of money laundering Russian money.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

Anybody else concerned about how dependent the Tories are on Russian donations?

I do find it bizarre that the same PM can on the one hand rally international condemnation of the Salisbury incident, and who would obviously be aware of documented Russian attempts at electoral interference, would then happily sit down to dinner and pose for 'girls' night out' photos with people so closely linked to that same government that she held responsible.

I have read that we are also dependent upon the sheer weight of money coming into the country

The City has made a lot of money laundering Russian money.

and property companies and overall helped the balance of payments

Stevo_666

Dorset_Boy said:

Corporation Tax based on the profits of international businesses is a busted flush, when those profits can be manipulated by the international business. The logical solution for international businesses is a move from a tax on the profit declared in a country (which is manipulated to reduce profit in 'higher rated countries' and increase profit in 'lower rated countries'), and move to a tax on the turnover of the company in the country. This is not the same as VAT as it would not be a point of sale tax, but a tax calculated using the audited accounts of the business.

They are already part of the way there on that on a selective basis with the digital services tax which many countries have introduced (pending an OECD consensus which seems to be a long time coming). However VAT does a pretty good job of filling the coffers. The biggest earners are income tax and NI (in the UK anyway).



So agree that corporation tax is a busted flush and the noise on this one tax is somewhat misguided.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

Anybody else concerned about how dependent the Tories are on Russian donations?

I do find it bizarre that the same PM can on the one hand rally international condemnation of the Salisbury incident, and who would obviously be aware of documented Russian attempts at electoral interference, would then happily sit down to dinner and pose for 'girls' night out' photos with people so closely linked to that same government that she held responsible.

I have read that we are also dependent upon the sheer weight of money coming into the country

The City has made a lot of money laundering Russian money.

I'm sure the EU will be looking to take that away from the City post Brexit.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

Anybody else concerned about how dependent the Tories are on Russian donations?

I do find it bizarre that the same PM can on the one hand rally international condemnation of the Salisbury incident, and who would obviously be aware of documented Russian attempts at electoral interference, would then happily sit down to dinner and pose for 'girls' night out' photos with people so closely linked to that same government that she held responsible.

I have read that we are also dependent upon the sheer weight of money coming into the country

The City has made a lot of money laundering Russian money.

I'm sure the EU will be looking to take that away from the City post Brexit.

It has f*ck all to do with the EU.

Stevo_666

john80 said:

Stevo_666 said:

john80 said:

Stevo_666 said:

john80 said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3655850

Nowhere else to put this but

Ending Corporate Tax Avoidance and Tax Competition: A Plan to Collect the Tax Deficit of Multinationals

I could suggest somewhere...

However it's an 18 page report so you need to explain concisely in your own words what your point is.

Having read the first five pages it is pretty logical. Big US company gets taxed say 21% on all worldwide earnings if the local rate is equal or more than this. So the Irish rate is 5% so Apple owes the remaining 16% to the US or it loses the abililty to sells products in the US. This makes Apple question the point of operating out of Ireland and allows Ireland to increase corporation tax. As always it has to be lead by big nations where loss to their domestic market would be a disaster for the business. This is not something a small nation can do as they dont have the clout.

Thanks John, but I've still no idea what Ricks own point is. Rick needs to set out his view if he wants a debate on this.

As for your take on it, I have a few questions:
1. Which country's tax rate should be used as the reference rate to calculate the top up? Problem is unless the world agrees, it will be a 'race to the top' determined by the greediest government or one with an agenda, which then has the power to blackmail a global corporation with a domestic tax rate change.
2. How will the calculation be agreed given there are differing accounting standards in many countries which will yield cifferent percentages?
3. How are local income taxes like US State taxes which vary in each state to be taken into account?
4. How likely do you think it is that (say) the US would stop one of its own commercial 'champions' like the US tech giants selling in its home market? Or any country denying consumers access to say Google, Apple, Facebook or Amazon? Or how about if this is a utility group supplying water or a supermarket group and is made to stop supplying water/food until it pays enough tax?
5. How does this account for the fundamental concept of territoriality in tax - that tax is levied on a territorial basis on profits arising in that country at a rate and based on rules set in that country?
6. Why does the article ignore all other taxes apart from corporation tax, which makes up no more than 10% of tax revenues overall?

The theory sounds nice to those with an agenda. But looks like it was written by a bunch of US academics and as you can see from just my initial thoughts based on what you wrote, the proposal is misguided, hopelessly impractical and unworkable in the real world.

1. We have tried the race to the bottom so a bit of race to the top would do no harm and i am sure a balance could be struck. The rate could be set by the US as most western countries not actively seeking investment through tax competition are similar.
2. The article is broad brushbon this bit given it is the larger country with a large domestic market driving the process the it is logical to use their process as lets face it does the opinion of the Cayman islands matter.
3. It could bebone rate and in the case of the US let them compete for domestic business through altering their local rates as the federal government would be best placed to step in if the next Cayman Island turned out to be Idaho.
4. Whilst it is tempting to think that Amazon would try to call the bluff of the government by threatening to shut down all US operations their management might have a tough time selling that to their shareholders. After all they only pay tax on profits and 75% of a pound in profit delivers a higher share price or dividend than no profit because you chose to shut the business down. Should they choose not to pay then they will find that governments have pretty big pockets for litigation and failing this the ability to change the law.
5. It merely adds to the territorial argument and does not remove it as it is a top up rate. In Apples example the Irish tax coul be over 21% and Apple would pay nothing extra to the US.
6. It ignores it as it is looking at corporation tax. It is pretty hard to dodge local business rates, vat or NI contributions in most countries so this is not an issue.

As always it is a nice idea and it would assist the tax takes of many countries with likely improvements in services for the citizens of that nation. It is not likely as in the US i would suspect that there is significant lobbying power available to defeat any notion of this. Being dificult to implement does not make it a bad idea though.

1. The US has recently cut its rate from 35% to 21%. Look at the trend across countries generally - it is going the opposite way to what you propose. Also, it only takes a few countries to break ranks and the whole thing fails: it would be too tempting not to, given the potential investment on offer. So you are hopeful, but not realistic.

2. That doesn't address my point. Countries use many different accounting standards and you are asking them to use one, feat that has evaded the accounting world for decades. How practically can that happen in your opinion?

3. Missing the point. Which is that countries such as US, Germany, Canada, Switzwerland have many different tax rates within their own countries. How does that fit with using a single country tax rate to determine the rate to use?

4. It's not about the likes of Amazon calling the bluff of governments. You said that governments would stop them from selling. Likewise, how does that work for companies supplying essentials, say water or food: or (say) one that operates nuclear powr stations - and what would happen when the government stops them from operating? That one needs thinking through more.

5. Ireland made it very clear they don't want a 21% tax rate and sided with Apple against the EU. That Ireland's choice as a sovereign nation and it is not unique in this respect given the downward trend in corporation tax rates. So what makes you think that is a realistic goal?

6. Other taxes are clearly relevant as they contribute over 90% of tax revenues and a large proportion of these other taxesare paid by directly by businesses, or indirectly by the people they employ. I explained upthread that corporate tax is often used as a way to attract business and investment (as I have seen in my job over the years fyi) and that that benefits flow from the VAT, income tax, business rates etc that the new business and investment generates.


The fact the article uses that well known lazy leftie generalisation 'a race to the bottom' is a clear indication of the bias of the authors.

Countries do have laws that allow them to tax foreign profit indirectly but overall the idea that that a company can be shut down because it does not pay a rate of tax determined by a different country is ridiculous. Nice theory, pity about the reality.

The article is not really calling for closing down companies but rather asking the to pay the tax difference between their home nation with their main market and that of the competitive tax environment that they choose to use for convenience. For sure the UK trying to shut Apple down or fining them probably is ridiculous the US not so much. If i was teleported into an entirely different system where i was a dictator of the US i think i could bring this change in and probably even afford to pay for universal healthcare. Bezos would be raging mind😀

Not all countries have the same business model. One made up analogy would be an independent Scotland offering a lower tax rate to entice companies whilst not paying for any defence spending as they take the political view they dont have to as if Scotland was invaded or attacked it would likely be in Englands interest to defend the UK for their self interest. You often use technical arguments yet fail to acknowledge that humans make the rules.

Closing them down is a step too far as I've already said.

Also I mentioned that there are rules in most countries that allow a form of this - google controlled foreign company (CFC) rules. Basically it allows profits in overseas subsidiaries of a company in country X to be subject to an additional tax bill on the shareholder company in country X - typically there is a threshold tax rate but more importantly, usually subject to substance 'tests'. Put simply, this means that if the company is a genuine commercial operation rather than a 'brass plaque' or shell company then the rules don't bite and the shareholder does not get a bill. Which goes back to my points about companies being free to set up in a country of their choosing and for the host countries to tax them as they see fit without interference. The rules work reasonably well in most cases, in that they make allowances for bona fide operations and not simply go on a tax rate or rate differential.

In that regard, the paper is nothing new as these CFC rules have been around for ages in most countries.

I'm well aware that people make the rules as part of the day job involves understanding the motivation behind taxes or tax policy in a particular country. It helps to us to win the arguments

kingstongraham

So you don't object to the principle then, as it's already working like that to a degree?

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

So you don't object to the principle then, as it's already working like that to a degree?

Fair question. I'm kind of accepting of it because its been part of the international tax landscape for so long - which some people seem to be oblivious to.

The rules of some countries can be a bit restrictive when it comes to quite a few things like bona fide restructurings etc; however I am OK with rules that catch the clearly abusive stuff but recognises that there are many genuine cases - it is way more than simply which country and tax rate. It also allows countries to create attractive tax regimes and for companies to choose to benefit from them without being punished for doing so.

Ireland being an example - it's corporate tax rate at 12.5% is below the rate threshold of many countries but in general provided the companies in question have staff, management, premises/fall into other commercial exemptions etc then the shareholder companies don't get caught.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

Anybody else concerned about how dependent the Tories are on Russian donations?

I do find it bizarre that the same PM can on the one hand rally international condemnation of the Salisbury incident, and who would obviously be aware of documented Russian attempts at electoral interference, would then happily sit down to dinner and pose for 'girls' night out' photos with people so closely linked to that same government that she held responsible.

I have read that we are also dependent upon the sheer weight of money coming into the country

The City has made a lot of money laundering Russian money.

I'm sure the EU will be looking to take that away from the City post Brexit.

It has f*ck all to do with the EU.

Not sure if you can guarantee that.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

Anybody else concerned about how dependent the Tories are on Russian donations?

I do find it bizarre that the same PM can on the one hand rally international condemnation of the Salisbury incident, and who would obviously be aware of documented Russian attempts at electoral interference, would then happily sit down to dinner and pose for 'girls' night out' photos with people so closely linked to that same government that she held responsible.

I have read that we are also dependent upon the sheer weight of money coming into the country

The City has made a lot of money laundering Russian money.

I'm sure the EU will be looking to take that away from the City post Brexit.

It has f*ck all to do with the EU.

Not sure if you can guarantee that.

OK, what do you think makes Russians want to launder their money in London?

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

Anybody else concerned about how dependent the Tories are on Russian donations?

I do find it bizarre that the same PM can on the one hand rally international condemnation of the Salisbury incident, and who would obviously be aware of documented Russian attempts at electoral interference, would then happily sit down to dinner and pose for 'girls' night out' photos with people so closely linked to that same government that she held responsible.

I have read that we are also dependent upon the sheer weight of money coming into the country

The City has made a lot of money laundering Russian money.

I'm sure the EU will be looking to take that away from the City post Brexit.

It has f*ck all to do with the EU.

Not sure if you can guarantee that.

OK, what do you think makes Russians want to launder their money in London?

I should imagine they are not fussy. That some is laundered in London does not preclude it being laundered elsewhere.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

Anybody else concerned about how dependent the Tories are on Russian donations?

I do find it bizarre that the same PM can on the one hand rally international condemnation of the Salisbury incident, and who would obviously be aware of documented Russian attempts at electoral interference, would then happily sit down to dinner and pose for 'girls' night out' photos with people so closely linked to that same government that she held responsible.

I have read that we are also dependent upon the sheer weight of money coming into the country

The City has made a lot of money laundering Russian money.

I'm sure the EU will be looking to take that away from the City post Brexit.

It has f*ck all to do with the EU.

Not sure if you can guarantee that.

OK, what do you think makes Russians want to launder their money in London?

Maybe because it is by far the largest financial centre in Europe. But my point is that there will be some of this going on in the EU, wouldn't you agree?

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

Anybody else concerned about how dependent the Tories are on Russian donations?

I do find it bizarre that the same PM can on the one hand rally international condemnation of the Salisbury incident, and who would obviously be aware of documented Russian attempts at electoral interference, would then happily sit down to dinner and pose for 'girls' night out' photos with people so closely linked to that same government that she held responsible.

I have read that we are also dependent upon the sheer weight of money coming into the country

The City has made a lot of money laundering Russian money.

I'm sure the EU will be looking to take that away from the City post Brexit.

It has f*ck all to do with the EU.

Not sure if you can guarantee that.

OK, what do you think makes Russians want to launder their money in London?

I should imagine they are not fussy. That some is laundered in London does not preclude it being laundered elsewhere.

UK has a history of not caring where the money comes from so attracts more dodgy money. You are not going to stash money in a country with a history of freezing/seizing dodgy assets.

we are in a category with places like Cyprus

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

Anybody else concerned about how dependent the Tories are on Russian donations?

I do find it bizarre that the same PM can on the one hand rally international condemnation of the Salisbury incident, and who would obviously be aware of documented Russian attempts at electoral interference, would then happily sit down to dinner and pose for 'girls' night out' photos with people so closely linked to that same government that she held responsible.

I have read that we are also dependent upon the sheer weight of money coming into the country

The City has made a lot of money laundering Russian money.

I'm sure the EU will be looking to take that away from the City post Brexit.

It has f*ck all to do with the EU.

Not sure if you can guarantee that.

OK, what do you think makes Russians want to launder their money in London?

I should imagine they are not fussy. That some is laundered in London does not preclude it being laundered elsewhere.

Kinda beat me to it...

pblakeney

I heard on a podcast recently that the UK is one of the most lax countries in the world when it comes to investigating money laundering.

Dorset_Boy

Think the Russians laundered a bit in Europe's top ski resorts and other holiday spots too.