Mr. Pulpstar, it sounds completely ****ing mental. I'd need some time to think about whether it's actually worse than the EU VAT insanity, but it's certainly of comparable stupidity.
Which moron has proposed it? Is it to try and get Starbucks or similar to pay some tax?
Not sure - perhaps the best solution for taxation on £1$Bn + enterprises would be to administered by the WTO and be 15% on profits for the group divvied up between all the countries in the whole world ? If you could get NAFTA and the EU on board it could be a starter...
I've been a lone voice (I think) in here in calling for an inquiry into why infrastructure costs (housing, roads and yes, HS2) are so high in this country, especially compared to our European friends.
Well, another case to point: there are plans to create a garden footbridge over the Thames (a bit, I think, like the Green Bridge at Mile End). The bridge is to cost a staggering £175 million, and will have £3.5 million annual maintenance costs.
Think about that for a minute: £3.5 million maintenance. Per year. For a footbridge. As a comparison, the Millennium footbridge cost just £18.2 million to build. Even given the Millennium bridge's rather wobbly opening and alterations, it was still, apparently, a steal.
Are you sure it is that much? I thought they were targetting £100m? I hosted a dinner for Mervyn & a contact of his that they were trying to get to support the programme - I'm a bit hazy on the details, but surprised I'd be £75m out!
Part of it is how quickly they need to do it (before the work on the supersewer starts - once this happens there can be no digging in the Thames). They are also planning to effectively rebuild Temple Tube station.
Looked at it in more detail now.
The £175m includes the trust fund that they are setting up to cover the maintenance costs going forward. Additionally, you need to remember (this reflects in both the initial cost and the maintenance cost) that they view the bridge as a park / public space (like the Hi Line in New York). They explicitly didn't want to have a functional bridge like Waterloo or Blackfriars).
Additionally, the government contribution is £60m (some of which is in tax rebates rather than cash and which will also help with other improvements - eg the Temple rebuild).
£120m is coming from public donations and, as far as I'm concerned, the public can spend their money on whatever they want
Thanks for that Charles.
However, assuming (and it a large assumption) that £75 million gets put into a maintenance fund, that is only enough for twenty years (and probably less, given that engineering maintenance costs increase over time). That means that the public will soon be footing out at least £3.5 million a year just to maintain this bridge.
I love engineering structures and architecture. But I cannot even 'get' the design of it: the green bridge at Mile End was at least designed to connect two existing parks together, creating a linear park from Stepney to Victoria Park. It made sense conceptually.
This seems nonsensical in comparison. It's a gimmick, and one (even if it costs the taxpayer 'only' £60 million to build), will create large costs for the taxpayer in the future.
Assuming that ring-fenced departments continue to be protected after the election (no party is campaigning on spending cuts in education and health spending) means that spending on services such as justice, policing, diplomacy, defense and transport could fall by almost 60 percent in the decade to 2018/19 — it’s for the reader to judge whether that’s credible
I'd favour ring-fencing all departments, as we do with foreign aid. In each party's manifesto, they say things like: "International development: 0.7%. Health: 10%. Education: 6%. MOD: 3%" etc, leaving 5-10% for contingency.
Then, as GDP increases and decreased through a parliament, so does each department's spending. The government can either use the contingency to prop up individual departments, or pay off debt, or do one-offs.
It'd be much saner than the current messy system where departments have no idea of the government's largesse from one day to the next.
It would also give us something solid to vote for.
That's a very good idea.
We could tell people at the same time that government total receipts is 612bn, and total expenditure is 720bn, which bit would they like the government to spend 108bn less on ... The equivalent on an across the board 15% cut.
Why do you people think government expenditures need to equal income?
Where does the money come from ?
Mostly from tax with difference in borrowings from finance houses and pension funds.
Plenty of demand for it which is why yields are so low.
So just continue to accumulate national debt forever, and pay more and more interest every year, forever ?
That's the reality.
There is no need for government to "Pay down debt".
Are you Ed Balls?
The majority of national debt has been accumulated on the watch of Tory governments.
Mr. Charles, the tube station might be worth the money. But I note it's been found for London, whereas, despite promises and millions spent on preparing the way, Leeds had its tram system cancelled at the last minute (again) a few years ago.
Assuming that ring-fenced departments continue to be protected after the election (no party is campaigning on spending cuts in education and health spending) means that spending on services such as justice, policing, diplomacy, defense and transport could fall by almost 60 percent in the decade to 2018/19 — it’s for the reader to judge whether that’s credible
I'd favour ring-fencing all departments, as we do with foreign aid. In each party's manifesto, they say things like: "International development: 0.7%. Health: 10%. Education: 6%. MOD: 3%" etc, leaving 5-10% for contingency.
Then, as GDP increases and decreased through a parliament, so does each department's spending. The government can either use the contingency to prop up individual departments, or pay off debt, or do one-offs.
It'd be much saner than the current messy system where departments have no idea of the government's largesse from one day to the next.
It would also give us something solid to vote for.
That's a very good idea.
We could tell people at the same time that government total receipts is 612bn, and total expenditure is 720bn, which bit would they like the government to spend 108bn less on ... The equivalent on an across the board 15% cut.
Why do you people think government expenditures need to equal income?
Where does the money come from ?
Mostly from tax with difference in borrowings from finance houses and pension funds.
Plenty of demand for it which is why yields are so low.
So just continue to accumulate national debt forever, and pay more and more interest every year, forever ?
That's the reality.
There is no need for government to "Pay down debt".
Are you Ed Balls?
Danny Filkinstein in todays Times (in an article defenestrating Brown) points out that innocently but hillariously, Jim Murphy says of Brown that “We owe him a huge debt.” ....
So just continue to accumulate national debt forever, and pay more and more interest every year, forever ?
That's the reality.
There is no need for government to "Pay down debt".
What about in a year or two when the bond markets decide there better places to invest their money, that are either a safer risk, or pay a better return ?
Remember James Carville: "I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody."
Ah yes, the fabled "mighty" bond vigilantes who failed to turn up in 2010 and who take fright as soon as the central bank gets a grip (as the ECB did all too late in 2012).
Did anyone hear about the "turnover" tax this morning - I can't think of anything worse, for instance in my industry one thing we do is Molybdenum sales to customers, these aren't marked up very much at all and a turnover tax would kill this business stone dead. Thats just one example, but it would crucify high turnover low margin business.
Did anyone hear about the "turnover" tax this morning - I can't think of anything worse, for instance in my industry one thing we do is Molybdenum sales to customers, these aren't marked up very much at all and a turnover tax would kill this business stone dead. Thats just one example, but it would crucify high turnover low margin business.
presumably you could apply different rates to different industry (or none at all for some)
@mincer makes some good points, it would be great to see him continue to post here.
The oddschecker pie charts that Mike sometimes references are not even a very good guide to the amount of bets placed. I can be sure of that because sometimes they are for markets that only Ladbrokes have prices on. They frequently bear no resemblance to actual betting activity.
I assume they just measure how many people click on a particular selection on the oddschecker site because they definitely do not correlate to bets taken or money staked. I expect on big markets they are probably a good approximation, but otherwise I wouldn't take much notice of them.
Mr. Pulpstar, it sounds completely ****ing mental. I'd need some time to think about whether it's actually worse than the EU VAT insanity, but it's certainly of comparable stupidity.
Which moron has proposed it? Is it to try and get Starbucks or similar to pay some tax?
Not sure - perhaps the best solution for taxation on £1$Bn + enterprises would be to administered by the WTO and be 15% on profits for the group divvied up between all the countries in the whole world ? If you could get NAFTA and the EU on board it could be a starter...
A few weeks ago, UKIP proposed a turnover tax, it was insane then, I hope the coalition don't propose it.
Did anyone hear about the "turnover" tax this morning - I can't think of anything worse, for instance in my industry one thing we do is Molybdenum sales to customers, these aren't marked up very much at all and a turnover tax would kill this business stone dead. Thats just one example, but it would crucify high turnover low margin business.
Haven't seen the details, but there should certainly be an exemption for commodity trading (in the proper sense like molybendum) and distribution businesses (I'd tend to look at gross profit instead of t/o)
The question is how can you capture economic activity in a country by people who use clever schemes to offshore their profits (eg Starbucks). T/o would be a sensible way of doing that, but not sure that it should be a straight tax on t/o
Mr. Charles, it sounds like a similar approach to the vatmess. Try and get a bit of tax from a type of big company, design a bloody awful tax, and cripple SMEs.
Is the number of political bets a useful metric for understanding what is going on in political betting markets? I think not - particularly as over 80% of the turnover is likely to come from less than 20% of the punters. Far more interesting would be the liabilities faced by bookmakers on each runner - see my blog post on this when Mike published similar information in respect of Scottish Referendum betting. http://alberttapper.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/a-note-of-caution-about-political.html
Well said your article is bang on in my opinion.... Although people might be left with the idea that Patrick Jay is a lefty!
I'd favour ring-fencing all departments, as we do with foreign aid. In each party's manifesto, they say things like: "International development: 0.7%. Health: 10%. Education: 6%. MOD: 3%" etc, leaving 5-10% for contingency.
Then, as GDP increases and decreased through a parliament, so does each department's spending. The government can either use the contingency to prop up individual departments, or pay off debt, or do one-offs.
It'd be much saner than the current messy system where departments have no idea of the government's largesse from one day to the next.
It would also give us something solid to vote for.
That's a very good idea.
We could tell people at the same time that government total receipts is 612bn, and total expenditure is 720bn, which bit would they like the government to spend 108bn less on ... The equivalent on an across the board 15% cut.
Why do you people think government expenditures need to equal income?
Where does the money come from ?
Mostly from tax with difference in borrowings from finance houses and pension funds.
Plenty of demand for it which is why yields are so low.
So just continue to accumulate national debt forever, and pay more and more interest every year, forever ?
That's the reality.
There is no need for government to "Pay down debt".
Are you Ed Balls?
The majority of national debt has been accumulated on the watch of Tory governments.
Disingenuous piffle. It was accumulated on structural costs Gordon Brown put in place. You would have been the first to scream had Osborne revoked all those pay rises that Brown made late in his term of office, or immediately sacked all the public sector staff he hired. Those people and paycheck go on costing the country money every year even after Brown left office. Its a Labour debt build up from Labour spending commitments and the public knows it, even the Labour heir apparent knows it
In the GQ interview, he said: "My view is that the seeds were sown under the last government and Gordon [Brown] – for whom I have a lot of respect. His refusal to use the word 'cuts' in trying to frame the economic debate as investment versus cuts gave the impression we didn't understand that debt and deficit would have to be dealt with."
Did anyone hear about the "turnover" tax this morning - I can't think of anything worse, for instance in my industry one thing we do is Molybdenum sales to customers, these aren't marked up very much at all and a turnover tax would kill this business stone dead. Thats just one example, but it would crucify high turnover low margin business.
Haven't seen the details, but there should certainly be an exemption for commodity trading (in the proper sense like molybendum) and distribution businesses (I'd tend to look at gross profit instead of t/o)
The question is how can you capture economic activity in a country by people who use clever schemes to offshore their profits (eg Starbucks). T/o would be a sensible way of doing that, but not sure that it should be a straight tax on t/o
It's a part of our business, the Moly just gets lumped in with other (higher margin) sales/Cost of sales- we aren't really a commodity trader, more a favour for our customers as a 1 stop shop on that. I don't know - it sounds good to a layman in theory, but it would be awful and immediately have far too many exemptions to make it worth the while in practice.
Looking at it, Patrick O'Flynn proposed the turnover tax at the same time as the luxury goods tax.
I'm surprised Farage hasn't slapped him down on the turnover tax as he did on the luxury goods tax.
UKIP really are economic nationalists
UKIP proposes that a Treasury Commission, using the best brains of that elite Whitehall department, be set up to design a turnover tax for large businesses.
Every major company would have to show it had paid a set proportion of its turnover in corporation and other taxes or would face an additional charge to bring it up to the minimum. This would work as a back stop for the tax system and ensure that every big company pays a fair share of tax.
And the UK is the fastest growing economy in the G7. And one of the top performers now in the world. He can continue to be useless if thats what the outcomes are. One really wonders what you must have thought of that colossus of No 11 Gordon when he started to place the country in trouble in 2003 and onwards finally slamming the UK into the fiscal brick wall in 2008?
Don't take my word for it just check all the warnings form the IMF and EU and others from 2003 onwards.
I hit a low yesterday when I found myself largely agreeing with a french bank on their view of the UK; read it and weep.
I thought Brown was dire Osborne is simply continuing his policies at a slower pace.
Interesting that you are listening to the French... today's news :
Investing.com - French service sector activity fell unexpectedly last month, official data showed on Wednesday.
In a report, Markit Economics said that French Services PMI fell to a seasonally adjusted 47.9, from 48.8 in the prior month.
Analysts had expected French Services PMI to remain unchanged at 48.8 last month.
The headline is misleading. Any reading under 50 is contraction, any reading over 50 us growth. So, "analysts" expected French services activity to fall in November - that what a forecast of 48.8 implies. However, the Markit number is that services activity fell more than expected.
Other parts of Europe were much better: Ireland was 61.6, UK 58.6, Spain 52.7, Italy 51.8, Germany 52.1.
France - whatever SG says - is the sick man of Europe right now.
I guess though, people who cheer Tories when they do things they would criticise others for are happy
'Just like any chancellor, Mr Osborne is a politician with economic responsibilities, not an economist doing politics. And when it comes to politics, Mr Osborne is winning.
He may have failed to do what he said he would do on the public finances. He may have quietly adopted a plan he said would be a disaster for Britain. But he has still managed to persuade people that despite those failings and deviations, things would be worse under the other lot. The Conservatives remain more trusted of the economy than Labour.'
However, assuming (and it a large assumption) that £75 million gets put into a maintenance fund, that is only enough for twenty years (and probably less, given that engineering maintenance costs increase over time). That means that the public will soon be footing out at least £3.5 million a year just to maintain this bridge.
I love engineering structures and architecture. But I cannot even 'get' the design of it: the green bridge at Mile End was at least designed to connect two existing parks together, creating a linear park from Stepney to Victoria Park. It made sense conceptually.
This seems nonsensical in comparison. It's a gimmick, and one (even if it costs the taxpayer 'only' £60 million to build), will create large costs for the taxpayer in the future.
If they can generate 4.5% p.a. return on £75m that covers the maintenance cost. It's a toppy number (it means you need to target 7% to offset future inflation in maintenance costs) but it's not impossible with a broadly equity based portfolio. I'd assume, as well, that the £3.5m includes a significant sinking fund allocation to allow for major repairs - so with a dividend yield of, say, 2.5% on £7.5m (about £1.8m) you'll be able to fund the ongoing cash maintenance, with the remaining being rolled into reserves.
And fundraising is still ongoing. Just wait till they try to sell you a brick in the bridge
"In the 2007 financial year to end-September, Starbucks' UK unit's accounts showed its tenth consecutive annual loss. Yet that November, Chief Operating Officer Martin Coles told analysts on the fourth-quarter earnings call that the UK unit's profits were funding Starbucks' expansion in other overseas markets."
"For 2008, Starbucks filed a 26 million pounds loss in the UK. Yet CEO Schultz told an analysts' call that the UK business had been so successful he planned to take the lessons he had learnt there and apply them to the company's largest market - the United States. He also promoted Cliff Burrows, former head of the UK and Europe, to head the U.S. business."
In 2009, accounts filed in London claimed a record loss of 52 million pounds for the financial year to September 27, while CFO Alstead told investors on a call that the UK unit was "profitable."
Perhaps a bit of old fashioned law instead of accountancy is needed in this instance - if a company is found to be "grossly and aggressively" avoiding taxation in a country where it is producing turnover - investment calls/taxation being largely contradictory then it should be barred from trading in the UK ^_~.
I think Starbucks is guilty of that. Put it before a judge mayhaps.
Did anyone hear about the "turnover" tax this morning - I can't think of anything worse, for instance in my industry one thing we do is Molybdenum sales to customers, these aren't marked up very much at all and a turnover tax would kill this business stone dead. Thats just one example, but it would crucify high turnover low margin business.
Haven't seen the details, but there should certainly be an exemption for commodity trading (in the proper sense like molybendum) and distribution businesses (I'd tend to look at gross profit instead of t/o)
The question is how can you capture economic activity in a country by people who use clever schemes to offshore their profits (eg Starbucks). T/o would be a sensible way of doing that, but not sure that it should be a straight tax on t/o
Country-by-country reporting and a GAAR is what is needed not a disastrous turnover tax. As Pulpstar says a tax on turnover annihilates low margin businesses. Country-by-country with a GAAR stops multi-nationals from playing shell games with their profits.
And the UK is the fastest growing economy in the G7. And one of the top performers now in the world. He can continue to be useless if thats what the outcomes are. One really wonders what you must have thought of that colossus of No 11 Gordon when he started to place the country in trouble in 2003 and onwards finally slamming the UK into the fiscal brick wall in 2008?
Don't take my word for it just check all the warnings form the IMF and EU and others from 2003 onwards.
I hit a low yesterday when I found myself largely agreeing with a french bank on their view of the UK; read it and weep.
Did anyone hear about the "turnover" tax this morning - I can't think of anything worse, for instance in my industry one thing we do is Molybdenum sales to customers, these aren't marked up very much at all and a turnover tax would kill this business stone dead. Thats just one example, but it would crucify high turnover low margin business.
Haven't seen the details, but there should certainly be an exemption for commodity trading (in the proper sense like molybendum) and distribution businesses (I'd tend to look at gross profit instead of t/o)
The question is how can you capture economic activity in a country by people who use clever schemes to offshore their profits (eg Starbucks). T/o would be a sensible way of doing that, but not sure that it should be a straight tax on t/o
Country-by-country with a GAAR stops multi-nationals from playing shell games with their profits.
It also effectively enforces corporation tax harmonisation. That is a huge problem for countries like Ireland that rely on competition. It also destroys the notion of countries being independent nation states free to compete. Within the EU it destroys the single market (or at least the concept of independent nation states with a single market). So....a few minor issues to resolve! Companies will organise in a single market to domicile their profits in the low tax countries.
"In the 2007 financial year to end-September, Starbucks' UK unit's accounts showed its tenth consecutive annual loss. Yet that November, Chief Operating Officer Martin Coles told analysts on the fourth-quarter earnings call that the UK unit's profits were funding Starbucks' expansion in other overseas markets."
"For 2008, Starbucks filed a 26 million pounds loss in the UK. Yet CEO Schultz told an analysts' call that the UK business had been so successful he planned to take the lessons he had learnt there and apply them to the company's largest market - the United States. He also promoted Cliff Burrows, former head of the UK and Europe, to head the U.S. business."
In 2009, accounts filed in London claimed a record loss of 52 million pounds for the financial year to September 27, while CFO Alstead told investors on a call that the UK unit was "profitable."
Perhaps a bit of old fashioned law instead of accountancy is needed in this instance - if a company is found to be "grossly and aggressively" avoiding taxation in a country where it is producing turnover - investment calls/taxation being largely contradictory then it should be barred from trading in the UK ^_~.
I think Starbucks is guilty of that. Put it before a judge mayhaps.
Water companies allegedly ran up borrowing to reduce/eliminate their tax liabilities.
Did anyone hear about the "turnover" tax this morning - I can't think of anything worse, for instance in my industry one thing we do is Molybdenum sales to customers, these aren't marked up very much at all and a turnover tax would kill this business stone dead. Thats just one example, but it would crucify high turnover low margin business.
Haven't seen the details, but there should certainly be an exemption for commodity trading (in the proper sense like molybendum) and distribution businesses (I'd tend to look at gross profit instead of t/o)
The question is how can you capture economic activity in a country by people who use clever schemes to offshore their profits (eg Starbucks). T/o would be a sensible way of doing that, but not sure that it should be a straight tax on t/o
Country-by-country reporting and a GAAR is what is needed not a disastrous turnover tax. As Pulpstar says a tax on turnover annihilates low margin businesses. Country-by-country with a GAAR stops multi-nationals from playing shell games with their profits.
Proper GAAR is hard.
Multinationals have many, many ways to avoid tax. (I was looking through some old Amazon orders today and found a bunch of them were 'fulfilled' through Luxembourg and were subject to only 5% VAT - which kinda stuffs local traders... and which explains the disastrously ill thought out new EU VAT rules.)
The problem is "where do profits accrue"?
Transfer pricing is hard, and companies have good lawyers. They will always true and ensure that the 'value add' happens in low tax juristictions - so licensing fees will go to Ireland or the Caymans or Bermuda.
However, assuming (and it a large assumption) that £75 million gets put into a maintenance fund, that is only enough for twenty years (and probably less, given that engineering maintenance costs increase over time). That means that the public will soon be footing out at least £3.5 million a year just to maintain this bridge.
I love engineering structures and architecture. But I cannot even 'get' the design of it: the green bridge at Mile End was at least designed to connect two existing parks together, creating a linear park from Stepney to Victoria Park. It made sense conceptually.
This seems nonsensical in comparison. It's a gimmick, and one (even if it costs the taxpayer 'only' £60 million to build), will create large costs for the taxpayer in the future.
If they can generate 4.5% p.a. return on £75m that covers the maintenance cost. It's a toppy number (it means you need to target 7% to offset future inflation in maintenance costs) but it's not impossible with a broadly equity based portfolio. I'd assume, as well, that the £3.5m includes a significant sinking fund allocation to allow for major repairs - so with a dividend yield of, say, 2.5% on £7.5m (about £1.8m) you'll be able to fund the ongoing cash maintenance, with the remaining being rolled into reserves.
And fundraising is still ongoing. Just wait till they try to sell you a brick in the bridge
Personally I'd rather give money to a heritage project - a pier, for instance. But each to their own. :-)
Thanks again for the figures, but that does seem rather hopeful, and especially if/when the construction costs increase.
I still don't get the point of it: conceptually it seems bogus (to me at least), and there are several bridges within a few minutes walk. If it is needed, then why is it (as I think you're saying) tied in with the redevelopment of Temple tube?
But this is getting away from my original point: why the heck do engineering projects seem to cost so much more in this country than they do abroad? Land costs more, but that appears to be far from the whole story.
Looking at it, Patrick O'Flynn proposed the turnover tax at the same time as the luxury goods tax.
I'm surprised Farage hasn't slapped him down on the turnover tax as he did on the luxury goods tax.
UKIP really are economic nationalists
UKIP proposes that a Treasury Commission, using the best brains of that elite Whitehall department, be set up to design a turnover tax for large businesses.
Every major company would have to show it had paid a set proportion of its turnover in corporation and other taxes or would face an additional charge to bring it up to the minimum. This would work as a back stop for the tax system and ensure that every big company pays a fair share of tax.
And the UK is the fastest growing economy in the G7. And one of the top performers now in the world. He can continue to be useless if thats what the outcomes are. One really wonders what you must have thought of that colossus of No 11 Gordon when he started to place the country in trouble in 2003 and onwards finally slamming the UK into the fiscal brick wall in 2008?
Don't take my word for it just check all the warnings form the IMF and EU and others from 2003 onwards.
I hit a low yesterday when I found myself largely agreeing with a french bank on their view of the UK; read it and weep.
Water companies allegedly ran up borrowing to reduce/eliminate their tax liabilities.
The most common tax dodge in the history of finance - going back 100 years - is the debt/equity switch.
Dividends come out of post tax income. Interest payments come out of pre tax.
That's how private equity companies, and leveraged buy out businesses work. They pile lots of (tax free) debt on business to maximise their payout (and minimise tax losses).
The SNP are currently FAV or JOINT FAV in 17 individual seat market (incumbent in brackets):
Angus (SNP) Argyll & Bute (LIB DEM) Banff & Buchan (SNP) Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross (LIB DEM) Dundee East (SNP) Dundee West (LABOUR) East Dunbartonshire (LIB DEM) Edinburgh West (LIB DEM) Falkirk (IND, formerly LABOUR) Gordon (LIB DEM) Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (LIB DEM) Moray (SNP) Na h-Eileanan an Iar (SNP) Ochil & South Perthshire (LABOUR) Perth & North Perthshire (SNP) North East Fife (LIB DEM) West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (LIB DEM)
... however, these are the current SNP favourite seat bands:
Ladbrokes 31+ seats Hills 26+ seats
... and the SNP line prices are (5/6 over or under):
Paddy Power 27.5 seats Ladbrokes 25.5 seats Betfair 24.5 seat
Something doesn't add up. Either the total SNP seat markets are seriously overplaying the likely extent of SNP gains, or else there are some stunning values available in certain individual seat markets.
Whatever, not everyone is right, therefore there is money to be made.
Looking at it, Patrick O'Flynn proposed the turnover tax at the same time as the luxury goods tax.
I'm surprised Farage hasn't slapped him down on the turnover tax as he did on the luxury goods tax.
UKIP really are economic nationalists
UKIP proposes that a Treasury Commission, using the best brains of that elite Whitehall department, be set up to design a turnover tax for large businesses.
Every major company would have to show it had paid a set proportion of its turnover in corporation and other taxes or would face an additional charge to bring it up to the minimum. This would work as a back stop for the tax system and ensure that every big company pays a fair share of tax.
Like Nige on sex education last night and many other incidents they are simply making it up as they go along.
I wouldn't worry too much about UKIP policies on any given subject. They're like London buses. There will be another one along in a minute. And sometimes three arrive at once.
Mr. Charles, the tube station might be worth the money. But I note it's been found for London, whereas, despite promises and millions spent on preparing the way, Leeds had its tram system cancelled at the last minute (again) a few years ago.
Sure. But given the fact that it is coming from TfL and the Mayor of London's budgets, don't you think it's reasonable to spend it in London?
Did anyone hear about the "turnover" tax this morning - I can't think of anything worse, for instance in my industry one thing we do is Molybdenum sales to customers, these aren't marked up very much at all and a turnover tax would kill this business stone dead. Thats just one example, but it would crucify high turnover low margin business.
Haven't seen the details, but there should certainly be an exemption for commodity trading (in the proper sense like molybendum) and distribution businesses (I'd tend to look at gross profit instead of t/o)
The question is how can you capture economic activity in a country by people who use clever schemes to offshore their profits (eg Starbucks). T/o would be a sensible way of doing that, but not sure that it should be a straight tax on t/o
Country-by-country reporting and a GAAR is what is needed not a disastrous turnover tax. As Pulpstar says a tax on turnover annihilates low margin businesses. Country-by-country with a GAAR stops multi-nationals from playing shell games with their profits.
Proper GAAR is hard.
Multinationals have many, many ways to avoid tax. (I was looking through some old Amazon orders today and found a bunch of them were 'fulfilled' through Luxembourg and were subject to only 5% VAT - which kinda stuffs local traders... and which explains the disastrously ill thought out new EU VAT rules.)
The problem is "where do profits accrue"?
Transfer pricing is hard, and companies have good lawyers. They will always true and ensure that the 'value add' happens in low tax juristictions - so licensing fees will go to Ireland or the Caymans or Bermuda.
If you've ordered a good from a UK seller and it's been delivered to the UK then clearly it's a tax dodge and should be viewed as such. If you've ordered through a Norwegian seller, likewise. the only counries I can realistically see fulfillment from on say a French order is perhaps Belgium or the Netherlands (There are large container ports there..)
If I buy Morris Dancer's book from Amazon then clearly the transaction is entirely UK bound. If it goes through Luxembourg that is very clearly and obviously a tax dodge.
The company I work for could probably set up an operation in Luxembourg, give ourselves loans etc from it - it wouldn't be that hard. But we don't because it's clearly dodgy as fuck.
And the UK is the fastest growing economy in the G7. And one of the top performers now in the world. He can continue to be useless if thats what the outcomes are. One really wonders what you must have thought of that colossus of No 11 Gordon when he started to place the country in trouble in 2003 and onwards finally slamming the UK into the fiscal brick wall in 2008?
Don't take my word for it just check all the warnings form the IMF and EU and others from 2003 onwards.
I hit a low yesterday when I found myself largely agreeing with a french bank on their view of the UK; read it and weep.
Mr. Charles, debatable, given that London gets more per head than anywhere else. I'd want to know more about where that money comes from (just Londoners, or the UK Treasury).
Edited extra bit: made a rare sale, via Amazon, in France in the last month or so. If such things were subject to the new EU insanity, I'd have to register for VAT in France. It baffles me how such an obviously indefensibly stupid law was dreamt up, let alone why it's going to be inflicted on us.
At the moment I think I'll be alright. Waiting for replies from Smashwords and HMRC.
From that article "Much of what has been written about the Lib Dems over recent years has been unfair. None of Nick Clegg's armchair critics would have been able to make a better decision after the election in 2010. Of all the difficult options available to him, he made the least damaging one. In power, the Lib Dems have fought off plenty of really grotesque Tory policies and modified others. You can’t win an election on negative counterfactuals - no-one votes for what might have been if you hadn’t been around. But they had these battles nonetheless, to little public recognition. Plenty of Lib Dem critics enjoy a better life now than they would have had if the party wasn't in power.
The party also has some of the most intellectually and morally impressive advisers in Westminster. The people operating behind the scenes are typically free thinkers and unencumbered by the shackles of ideology and tribalism which so besets Labour and Conservative MPs. Those around Clegg are, in my experience, particularly impressive."
It then goes on to critise the LibDems for the vote on Judicial Reviews.
I guess though, people who cheer Tories when they do things they would criticise others for are happy
'Just like any chancellor, Mr Osborne is a politician with economic responsibilities, not an economist doing politics. And when it comes to politics, Mr Osborne is winning.
He may have failed to do what he said he would do on the public finances. He may have quietly adopted a plan he said would be a disaster for Britain. But he has still managed to persuade people that despite those failings and deviations, things would be worse under the other lot. The Conservatives remain more trusted of the economy than Labour.'
The Telegraph seem to be using a very interesting advert system.
You get an intro to the article, and advert below it, then to continue reading the article you have to answer a multiple choice question which requires you to actually read the advert.
Mr. Charles, debatable, given that London gets more per head than anywhere else. I'd want to know more about where that money comes from (just Londoners, or the UK Treasury).
Edited extra bit: made a rare sale, via Amazon, in France in the last month or so. If such things were subject to the new EU insanity, I'd have to register for VAT in France. It baffles me how such an obviously indefensibly stupid law was dreamt up, let alone why it's going to be inflicted on us.
At the moment I think I'll be alright. Waiting for replies from Smashwords and HMRC.
It was made to stop Amazon charging 5% Luxembourg VAT to everyone, and therefore screwing local British businesses that were charging 20% VAT. Look through your old Amazon bills - they're through "Amazon EU S.a.r.L".
However, Amazon has already changed its spots. Excluding Kindle and digital downloads, Amazon now charges 20% VAT (probably after the VAT man pointed out that Amazon might have been 'taking' the order in Luxembourg, but was fulfilling it from Bedford). So, the VAT change is now a massive hassle for all small businesses across Europe.
Looking at it, Patrick O'Flynn proposed the turnover tax at the same time as the luxury goods tax.
I'm surprised Farage hasn't slapped him down on the turnover tax as he did on the luxury goods tax.
UKIP really are economic nationalists
UKIP proposes that a Treasury Commission, using the best brains of that elite Whitehall department, be set up to design a turnover tax for large businesses.
Every major company would have to show it had paid a set proportion of its turnover in corporation and other taxes or would face an additional charge to bring it up to the minimum. This would work as a back stop for the tax system and ensure that every big company pays a fair share of tax.
Like Nige on sex education last night and many other incidents they are simply making it up as they go along.
I wouldn't worry too much about UKIP policies on any given subject. They're like London buses. There will be another one along in a minute. And sometimes three arrive at once.
Their voters dont care what their policies are. They tick all the required boxes by scoring better on the "understands people like me" and "none of the above" scales, and being the only party with a coherent policy on immigration, and the only party which doesn't talk down to social conservatives, that will be sufficient to see them to 18-20% in the polls.
Assuming that the SNP line prices are approximately correct at about 26 seats (a big assume) then there must be 9 individual constituency markets where the SNP are good value. Here are some contenders:
(incumbent in first bracket) (SNP price in second bracket)
Aberdeen North (Lab) (11/10) Aberdeen South (Lab) (7/4) Airdrie & Shotts (Lab) (7/4) Ayrshire Central (Lab) (2/1) Ayrshire North & Arran (Lab) (11/10) East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Lab) (2/1) Edinburgh East (Lab) (13/8) Edinburgh South West (Lab) (15/8) Glasgow Central (Lab) (6/4) Glasgow East (Lab) (6/4) Glasgow North (Lab) (6/4) Inverclyde (Lab) (6/4) Kilmarnock & Loudoun (Lab) (13/8) Lanark and Hamilton East (Lab) (11/8) Linlithgow and Falkirk East (Lab) (5/4) Livingston (Lab) (7/4) Midlothian (Lab) (7/4) Motherwell & Wishaw (Lab) (2/1) Stirling (Lab) (13/8) West Dunbartonshire (Lab) (EVS)
Water companies allegedly ran up borrowing to reduce/eliminate their tax liabilities.
The most common tax dodge in the history of finance - going back 100 years - is the debt/equity switch.
Dividends come out of post tax income. Interest payments come out of pre tax.
That's how private equity companies, and leveraged buy out businesses work. They pile lots of (tax free) debt on business to maximise their payout (and minimise tax losses).
Looking at it, Patrick O'Flynn proposed the turnover tax at the same time as the luxury goods tax.
I'm surprised Farage hasn't slapped him down on the turnover tax as he did on the luxury goods tax.
UKIP really are economic nationalists
UKIP proposes that a Treasury Commission, using the best brains of that elite Whitehall department, be set up to design a turnover tax for large businesses.
Every major company would have to show it had paid a set proportion of its turnover in corporation and other taxes or would face an additional charge to bring it up to the minimum. This would work as a back stop for the tax system and ensure that every big company pays a fair share of tax.
Like Nige on sex education last night and many other incidents they are simply making it up as they go along.
I wouldn't worry too much about UKIP policies on any given subject. They're like London buses. There will be another one along in a minute. And sometimes three arrive at once.
Their voters dont care what their policies are. They tick all the required boxes by scoring better on the "understands people like me" and "none of the above" scales, and being the only party with a coherent policy on immigration, and the only party which doesn't talk down to social conservatives, that will be sufficient to see them to 18-20% in the polls.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry.
Country-by-country reporting and a GAAR is what is needed not a disastrous turnover tax. As Pulpstar says a tax on turnover annihilates low margin businesses. Country-by-country with a GAAR stops multi-nationals from playing shell games with their profits.
Dead right. Patrick feels this would be a problem for countries playing beggar-my-neighbour with ever-lower corporation tax. That's correct. What's not to like about that?
I guess though, people who cheer Tories when they do things they would criticise others for are happy
'Just like any chancellor, Mr Osborne is a politician with economic responsibilities, not an economist doing politics. And when it comes to politics, Mr Osborne is winning.
He may have failed to do what he said he would do on the public finances. He may have quietly adopted a plan he said would be a disaster for Britain. But he has still managed to persuade people that despite those failings and deviations, things would be worse under the other lot. The Conservatives remain more trusted of the economy than Labour.'
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"
Economic performance in the Eurozone in 2011 was terrible. This impacted the ability for an "export-led recovery" (when was the last time we heard that?)
You can argue that Osborne's original plan was over-optimistic/unrealistic.
But to compare Osborne's outturn to Darling's plan without comparing Darling's assumptions to the actual outcomes is just crap analytics
Did anyone hear about the "turnover" tax this morning - I can't think of anything worse, for instance in my industry one thing we do is Molybdenum sales to customers, these aren't marked up very much at all and a turnover tax would kill this business stone dead. Thats just one example, but it would crucify high turnover low margin business.
Haven't seen the details, but there should certainly be an exemption for commodity trading (in the proper sense like molybendum) and distribution businesses (I'd tend to look at gross profit instead of t/o)
The question is how can you capture economic activity in a country by people who use clever schemes to offshore their profits (eg Starbucks). T/o would be a sensible way of doing that, but not sure that it should be a straight tax on t/o
Country-by-country reporting and a GAAR is what is needed not a disastrous turnover tax. As Pulpstar says a tax on turnover annihilates low margin businesses. Country-by-country with a GAAR stops multi-nationals from playing shell games with their profits.
Proper GAAR is hard.
Multinationals have many, many ways to avoid tax. (I was looking through some old Amazon orders today and found a bunch of them were 'fulfilled' through Luxembourg and were subject to only 5% VAT - which kinda stuffs local traders... and which explains the disastrously ill thought out new EU VAT rules.)
The problem is "where do profits accrue"?
Transfer pricing is hard, and companies have good lawyers. They will always true and ensure that the 'value add' happens in low tax juristictions - so licensing fees will go to Ireland or the Caymans or Bermuda.
If you've ordered a good from a UK seller and it's been delivered to the UK then clearly it's a tax dodge and should be viewed as such. If you've ordered through a Norwegian seller, likewise. the only counries I can realistically see fulfillment from on say a French order is perhaps Belgium or the Netherlands (There are large container ports there..)
If I buy Morris Dancer's book from Amazon then clearly the transaction is entirely UK bound. If it goes through Luxembourg that is very clearly and obviously a tax dodge.
The company I work for could probably set up an operation in Luxembourg, give ourselves loans etc from it - it wouldn't be that hard. But we don't because it's clearly dodgy as fuck.
Problem is we joined an economic block which was set up to explicitly allow those sorts of arrangements, the chance of stopping them while in the EU, must quite fairly close to zero.
Mr. Palmer, democratic societies have the right to elect governments which opt for a low taxation policy. Are you really saying that's an invalid choice? That free people should not be allowed to vote for a party of low taxes because you think it's wrong?
Mr. Antifrank, are you sure you haven't confused Nigel Farage for the Incredible Hulk?
Country-by-country reporting and a GAAR is what is needed not a disastrous turnover tax. As Pulpstar says a tax on turnover annihilates low margin businesses. Country-by-country with a GAAR stops multi-nationals from playing shell games with their profits.
Dead right. Patrick feels this would be a problem for countries playing beggar-my-neighbour with ever-lower corporation tax. That's correct. What's not to like about that?
Nick don't get me wrong. I would very much like Starbucks, Google, Amazon and the rest to pay alot more tax in the UK. I like! But...this cannot be achieved within a single EU market of independent nation states. It's the law and a founding principle of the EU. We could always just leave though....
Mr. Palmer, democratic societies have the right to elect governments which opt for a low taxation policy. Are you really saying that's an invalid choice? That free people should not be allowed to vote for a party of low taxes because you think it's wrong?
Mr. Antifrank, are you sure you haven't confused Nigel Farage for the Incredible Hulk?
I wouldn't do that. Because I don't like him when he's cheerful.
Looking at it, Patrick O'Flynn proposed the turnover tax at the same time as the luxury goods tax.
I'm surprised Farage hasn't slapped him down on the turnover tax as he did on the luxury goods tax.
UKIP really are economic nationalists
UKIP proposes that a Treasury Commission, using the best brains of that elite Whitehall department, be set up to design a turnover tax for large businesses.
Every major company would have to show it had paid a set proportion of its turnover in corporation and other taxes or would face an additional charge to bring it up to the minimum. This would work as a back stop for the tax system and ensure that every big company pays a fair share of tax.
Like Nige on sex education last night and many other incidents they are simply making it up as they go along.
I wouldn't worry too much about UKIP policies on any given subject. They're like London buses. There will be another one along in a minute. And sometimes three arrive at once.
Their voters dont care what their policies are.
That will be interesting theory to road test during a GE. May work, may not. SNP's hokey economic theory fooled a few in the Indy ref I suppose.
Assuming that ring-fenced departments continue to be protected after the election (no party is campaigning on spending cuts in education and health spending) means that spending on services such as justice, policing, diplomacy, defense and transport could fall by almost 60 percent in the decade to 2018/19 — it’s for the reader to judge whether that’s credible
I'd favour ring-fencing all departments, as we do with foreign aid. In each party's manifesto, they say things like: "International development: 0.7%. Health: 10%. Education: 6%. MOD: 3%" etc, leaving 5-10% for contingency.
Then, as GDP increases and decreased through a parliament, so does each department's spending. The government can either use the contingency to prop up individual departments, or pay off debt, or do one-offs.
It'd be much saner than the current messy system where departments have no idea of the government's largesse from one day to the next.
It would also give us something solid to vote for.
That's a very good idea.
We could tell people at the same time that government total receipts is 612bn, and total expenditure is 720bn, which bit would they like the government to spend 108bn less on ... The equivalent on an across the board 15% cut.
Why do you people think government expenditures need to equal income?
Where does the money come from ?
Mostly from tax with difference in borrowings from finance houses and pension funds.
Plenty of demand for it which is why yields are so low.
So just continue to accumulate national debt forever, and pay more and more interest every year, forever ?
That's the reality.
There is no need for government to "Pay down debt".
And how much interest is HMG currently paying annually?
Did anyone hear about the "turnover" tax this morning - I can't think of anything worse, for instance in my industry one thing we do is Molybdenum sales to customers, these aren't marked up very much at all and a turnover tax would kill this business stone dead. Thats just one example, but it would crucify high turnover low margin business.
Haven't seen the details, but there should certainly be an exemption for commodity trading (in the proper sense like molybendum) and distribution businesses (I'd tend to look at gross profit instead of t/o)
The question is how can you capture economic activity in a country by people who use clever schemes to offshore their profits (eg Starbucks). T/o would be a sensible way of doing that, but not sure that it should be a straight tax on t/o
Country-by-country reporting and a GAAR is what is needed not a disastrous turnover tax. As Pulpstar says a tax on turnover annihilates low margin businesses. Country-by-country with a GAAR stops multi-nationals from playing shell games with their profits.
Proper GAAR is hard.
Multinationals have many, many ways to avoid tax. (I was looking through some old Amazon orders today and found a bunch of them were 'fulfilled' through Luxembourg and were subject to only 5% VAT - which kinda stuffs local traders... and which explains the disastrously ill thought out new EU VAT rules.)
The problem is "where do profits accrue"?
Transfer pricing is hard, and companies have good lawyers. They will always true and ensure that the 'value add' happens in low tax juristictions - so licensing fees will go to Ireland or the Caymans or Bermuda.
Could you just say, for instance, that royalty payments to an affiliate (US definition) are not deductible for UK corporation tax? It's more difficult with things like coffee bean roasting as it is clear that value is added in the Netherlands (Starbucks). I would also be stricter on cases where the customer and the transaction really occur in the UK but "fulfilment" is abroad. Amazon and Google are good examples of this.
Mr. Palmer, democratic societies have the right to elect governments which opt for a low taxation policy. Are you really saying that's an invalid choice? That free people should not be allowed to vote for a party of low taxes because you think it's wrong?
Mr. Antifrank, are you sure you haven't confused Nigel Farage for the Incredible Hulk?
Most of our laws are made by the EU - this strikes me as one area where it would be beneficial (Except to teeny tiny tax dodge countries Luxembourg/Lichtenstein etc) where a bit of cooperation would help. Not telling us our prisoners should vote or something. The EU's priorities are completely backward ass.
Looking at it, Patrick O'Flynn proposed the turnover tax at the same time as the luxury goods tax.
I'm surprised Farage hasn't slapped him down on the turnover tax as he did on the luxury goods tax.
UKIP really are economic nationalists
UKIP proposes that a Treasury Commission, using the best brains of that elite Whitehall department, be set up to design a turnover tax for large businesses.
Every major company would have to show it had paid a set proportion of its turnover in corporation and other taxes or would face an additional charge to bring it up to the minimum. This would work as a back stop for the tax system and ensure that every big company pays a fair share of tax.
Like Nige on sex education last night and many other incidents they are simply making it up as they go along.
I wouldn't worry too much about UKIP policies on any given subject. They're like London buses. There will be another one along in a minute. And sometimes three arrive at once.
Their voters dont care what their policies are. They tick all the required boxes by scoring better on the "understands people like me" and "none of the above" scales, and being the only party with a coherent policy on immigration, and the only party which doesn't talk down to social conservatives, that will be sufficient to see them to 18-20% in the polls.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry.
It seems it is you that is angry, maybe because a significant and growing amount of people agree with UKIP and would think you were out of touch.
Looking at it, Patrick O'Flynn proposed the turnover tax at the same time as the luxury goods tax.
I'm surprised Farage hasn't slapped him down on the turnover tax as he did on the luxury goods tax.
UKIP really are economic nationalists
UKIP proposes that a Treasury Commission, using the best brains of that elite Whitehall department, be set up to design a turnover tax for large businesses.
Every major company would have to show it had paid a set proportion of its turnover in corporation and other taxes or would face an additional charge to bring it up to the minimum. This would work as a back stop for the tax system and ensure that every big company pays a fair share of tax.
Like Nige on sex education last night and many other incidents they are simply making it up as they go along.
I wouldn't worry too much about UKIP policies on any given subject. They're like London buses. There will be another one along in a minute. And sometimes three arrive at once.
Their voters dont care what their policies are. They tick all the required boxes by scoring better on the "understands people like me" and "none of the above" scales, and being the only party with a coherent policy on immigration, and the only party which doesn't talk down to social conservatives, that will be sufficient to see them to 18-20% in the polls.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry.
It seems it is you that is angry, maybe because a significant and growing amount of people agree with UKIP and would think you were out of touch.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
I guess though, people who cheer Tories when they do things they would criticise others for are happy
'Just like any chancellor, Mr Osborne is a politician with economic responsibilities, not an economist doing politics. And when it comes to politics, Mr Osborne is winning.
He may have failed to do what he said he would do on the public finances. He may have quietly adopted a plan he said would be a disaster for Britain. But he has still managed to persuade people that despite those failings and deviations, things would be worse under the other lot. The Conservatives remain more trusted of the economy than Labour.'
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"
Economic performance in the Eurozone in 2011 was terrible. This impacted the ability for an "export-led recovery" (when was the last time we heard that?)
You can argue that Osborne's original plan was over-optimistic/unrealistic.
But to compare Osborne's outturn to Darling's plan without comparing Darling's assumptions to the actual outcomes is just crap analytics
Proof that the article is right... It's worked on you!
However, assuming (and it a large assumption) that £75 million gets put into a maintenance fund, that is only enough for twenty years (and probably less, given that engineering maintenance costs increase over time). That means that the public will soon be footing out at least £3.5 million a year just to maintain this bridge.
I love engineering structures and architecture. But I cannot even 'get' the design of it: the green bridge at Mile End was at least designed to connect two existing parks together, creating a linear park from Stepney to Victoria Park. It made sense conceptually.
This seems nonsensical in comparison. It's a gimmick, and one (even if it costs the taxpayer 'only' £60 million to build), will create large costs for the taxpayer in the future.
If they can generate 4.5% p.a. return on £75m that covers the maintenance cost. It's a toppy number (it means you need to target 7% to offset future inflation in maintenance costs) but it's not impossible with a broadly equity based portfolio. I'd assume, as well, that the £3.5m includes a significant sinking fund allocation to allow for major repairs - so with a dividend yield of, say, 2.5% on £7.5m (about £1.8m) you'll be able to fund the ongoing cash maintenance, with the remaining being rolled into reserves.
And fundraising is still ongoing. Just wait till they try to sell you a brick in the bridge
Personally I'd rather give money to a heritage project - a pier, for instance. But each to their own. :-)
Thanks again for the figures, but that does seem rather hopeful, and especially if/when the construction costs increase.
I still don't get the point of it: conceptually it seems bogus (to me at least), and there are several bridges within a few minutes walk. If it is needed, then why is it (as I think you're saying) tied in with the redevelopment of Temple tube?
But this is getting away from my original point: why the heck do engineering projects seem to cost so much more in this country than they do abroad? Land costs more, but that appears to be far from the whole story.
The current bridges are hellish for both pedestrians and cyclists. There is also an economic development zone centred on the Northbank (from Temple west to Trafalgar Square and North to the Strand).
As for the Temple Tube redevelopment it's because the best "landing place" for the bridge is the roof of the current station...
Did anyone hear about the "turnover" tax this morning - I can't think of anything worse, for instance in my industry one thing we do is Molybdenum sales to customers, these aren't marked up very much at all and a turnover tax would kill this business stone dead. Thats just one example, but it would crucify high turnover low margin business.
Haven't seen the details, but there should certainly be an exemption for commodity trading (in the proper sense like molybendum) and distribution businesses (I'd tend to look at gross profit instead of t/o)
The question is how can you capture economic activity in a country by people who use clever schemes to offshore their profits (eg Starbucks). T/o would be a sensible way of doing that, but not sure that it should be a straight tax on t/o
Country-by-country reporting and a GAAR is what is needed not a disastrous turnover tax. As Pulpstar says a tax on turnover annihilates low margin businesses. Country-by-country with a GAAR stops multi-nationals from playing shell games with their profits.
Proper GAAR is hard.
Multinationals have many, many ways to avoid tax. (I was looking through some old Amazon orders today and found a bunch of them were 'fulfilled' through Luxembourg and were subject to only 5% VAT - which kinda stuffs local traders... and which explains the disastrously ill thought out new EU VAT rules.)
The problem is "where do profits accrue"?
Transfer pricing is hard, and companies have good lawyers. They will always true and ensure that the 'value add' happens in low tax juristictions - so licensing fees will go to Ireland or the Caymans or Bermuda.
Could you just say, for instance, that royalty payments to an affiliate (US definition) are not deductible for UK corporation tax? It's more difficult with things like coffee bean roasting as it is clear that value is added in the Netherlands (Starbucks). I would also be stricter on cases where the customer and the transaction really occur in the UK but "fulfilment" is abroad. Amazon and Google are good examples of this.
I placed an order for PC parts last year, it seems to have been fulfilled by Amazon S.a.r.l but the delivery was via "City Link"... I'd be fucking amazed if those parts came from Luxembourg. Should I send a message to HMRC ?
'No wonder landowners are scared. We are starting to learn who owns Britain' - Scotland is breaking the cover-up that stifles our political thought. - Bring the Highland Spring south
Scotland is rudely interrupting the constructed silences that stifle political thought in the UK. This is why the oligarchs who own the media hate everything that is happening there: their interests are being exposed in a way that is currently impossible south of the border.
For centuries, Britain has been a welfare state for patrimonial capital. It’s time we broke it open, and broke the culture of deference that keeps us in our place. Let’s bring the Highland spring south, and start discussing some dangerous subjects.
Did anyone hear about the "turnover" tax this morning - I can't think of anything worse, for instance in my industry one thing we do is Molybdenum sales to customers, these aren't marked up very much at all and a turnover tax would kill this business stone dead. Thats just one example, but it would crucify high turnover low margin business.
Haven't seen the details, but there should certainly be an exemption for commodity trading (in the proper sense like molybendum) and distribution businesses (I'd tend to look at gross profit instead of t/o)
The question is how can you capture economic activity in a country by people who use clever schemes to offshore their profits (eg Starbucks). T/o would be a sensible way of doing that, but not sure that it should be a straight tax on t/o
Country-by-country with a GAAR stops multi-nationals from playing shell games with their profits.
It also effectively enforces corporation tax harmonisation. That is a huge problem for countries like Ireland that rely on competition. It also destroys the notion of countries being independent nation states free to compete. Within the EU it destroys the single market (or at least the concept of independent nation states with a single market). So....a few minor issues to resolve! Companies will organise in a single market to domicile their profits in the low tax countries.
If Starbucks wants to sell an actual physical cup of coffee in the UK then it doesn't matter where their notional headquarters are under country-by-country reporting - they have to declare the sale as happening in the UK and a GAAR will stop them using intra-group accounting tricks to pretend they lost money on the sale.
Problem is we joined an economic block which was set up to explicitly allow those sorts of arrangements, the chance of stopping them while in the EU, must quite fairly close to zero.
If we left the EU but had a free trade agreement with it, it would be much, much worse.
Amazon would simply move all its UK operations to Luxembourg. When the choice came between you buying from Joe Bloggs of Birmingham (20% VAT) or Amazon of Luxembourg (5% or 0% VAT), people would choose the latter and save 15% on all their purchases.
Of course, you could get rid of the Free Trade Agreement part, but that's not UKIP (or any other BOO-ers) policy.
I placed an order for PC parts last year, it seems to have been fulfilled by Amazon S.a.r.l but the delivery was via "City Link"... I'd be fucking amazed if those parts came from Luxembourg. Should I send a message to HMRC ?
Amazon used to play this game a lot. But the last time I got charged just 5% VAT on physical goods delivered in the UK from Amazon was in July. The VAT-man clearly got heavy, and they changed the way they operated.
They still play this game on Kindle books and other digital downloads. Although that will have to change post the new EU VAT rules.
Looking at it, Patrick O'Flynn proposed the turnover tax at the same time as the luxury goods tax.
I'm surprised Farage hasn't slapped him down on the turnover tax as he did on the luxury goods tax.
UKIP really are economic nationalists
UKIP proposes that a Treasury Commission, using the best brains of that elite Whitehall department, be set up to design a turnover tax for large businesses.
Every major company would have to show it had paid a set proportion of its turnover in corporation and other taxes or would face an additional charge to bring it up to the minimum. This would work as a back stop for the tax system and ensure that every big company pays a fair share of tax.
Like Nige on sex education last night and many other incidents they are simply making it up as they go along.
I wouldn't worry too much about UKIP policies on any given subject. They're like London buses. There will be another one along in a minute. And sometimes three arrive at once.
Their voters dont care what their policies are. They tick all the required boxes by scoring better on the "understands people like me" and "none of the above" scales, and being the only party with a coherent policy on immigration, and the only party which doesn't talk down to social conservatives, that will be sufficient to see them to 18-20% in the polls.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry.
It seems it is you that is angry, maybe because a significant and growing amount of people agree with UKIP and would think you were out of touch.
My wife was a non-EU citizen (she also has a brown skin, and might be a borderline "ting-tong" since this seems to matter to some aspects of the Tory party posting on these forums.) She is a highly qualified microprocessor designer. Because she comes from outside the EU, and because she came to set up a family not take a job, she was not covered by skills shortage visa. Had she been an EU citizen she would have walked in the door without anyone batting an eye. It would therefore be fair to describe the immigration policy as racist, it treated her differentially according to her race. Had the UKIP points system been in force, assuming it was modelled on Canada or Australia she would have had points to spare for gaining a visa just on the basis of her age, qualifications and language skills, and the points system is colourblind.
However, Amazon has already changed its spots. Excluding Kindle and digital downloads, Amazon now charges 20% VAT (probably after the VAT man pointed out that Amazon might have been 'taking' the order in Luxembourg, but was fulfilling it from Bedford). So, the VAT change is now a massive hassle for all small businesses across Europe.
It's always been a rather strange historical anomaly by the HMRC that they declared that Amazon's chain of massive warehouses all across the UK employing thousands didn't count as a permanent place of business in the UK. They've obviously decided to revise that opinion.
Looking at it, Patrick O'Flynn proposed the turnover tax at the same time as the luxury goods tax.
I'm surprised Farage hasn't slapped him down on the turnover tax as he did on the luxury goods tax.
UKIP really are economic nationalists
UKIP proposes that a Treasury Commission, using the best brains of that elite Whitehall department, be set up to design a turnover tax for large businesses.
Every major company would have to show it had paid a set proportion of its turnover in corporation and other taxes or would face an additional charge to bring it up to the minimum. This would work as a back stop for the tax system and ensure that every big company pays a fair share of tax.
Like Nige on sex education last night and many other incidents they are simply making it up as they go along.
I wouldn't worry too much about UKIP policies on any given subject. They're like London buses. There will be another one along in a minute. And sometimes three arrive at once.
Their voters dont care what their policies are. They tick all the required boxes by scoring better on the "understands people like me" and "none of the above" scales, and being the only party with a coherent policy on immigration, and the only party which doesn't talk down to social conservatives, that will be sufficient to see them to 18-20% in the polls.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry.
It seems it is you that is angry, maybe because a significant and growing amount of people agree with UKIP and would think you were out of touch.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
That is absolute nonsense.
The key change to immigration policy would involve treating all prospective immigrants equally. The EU applicants would face the same procedures as the non-EU applicants.
Mr. Palmer, democratic societies have the right to elect governments which opt for a low taxation policy. Are you really saying that's an invalid choice? That free people should not be allowed to vote for a party of low taxes because you think it's wrong?
Mr. Antifrank, are you sure you haven't confused Nigel Farage for the Incredible Hulk?
Most of our laws are made by the EU - this strikes me as one area where it would be beneficial (Except to teeny tiny tax dodge countries Luxembourg/Lichtenstein etc) where a bit of cooperation would help. Not telling us our prisoners should vote or something. The EU's priorities are completely backward ass.
I thought the prisoner vote thing was to do with us being a signatory to the ECHR rather than the EU?
Is the number of political bets a useful metric for understanding what is going on in political betting markets? I think not - particularly as over 80% of the turnover is likely to come from less than 20% of the punters. Far more interesting would be the liabilities faced by bookmakers on each runner - see my blog post on this when Mike published similar information in respect of Scottish Referendum betting. http://alberttapper.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/a-note-of-caution-about-political.html
To muse. As well as statistical fluctuations, the "tails wagging dogs" syndrome permeates the whole political process, its polling and betting. Thirty odd percent of votes cast can produce a winner. Oldsters are more likely to vote that youngsters. There can be tendentious wording on a poll.
This is surely not a new idea---I'm sure some punters think about it all the time---but I wonder what sort of correlation(s) there are between punters' odds, the polls percentages, and the results.
I am constantly amazed by the apparent degree to which comportment and delivery seem to encourage confidence and influence the result of an election. Is it in some way atavistic that such things seem important to many of us? My atavism takes the form that I wouldn't trust some politicians as far as I could throw them.
Looking at it, Patrick O'Flynn proposed the turnover tax at the same time as the luxury goods tax.
I'm surprised Farage hasn't slapped him down on the turnover tax as he did on the luxury goods tax.
UKIP really are economic nationalists
UKIP proposes that a Treasury Commission, using the best brains of that elite Whitehall department, be set up to design a turnover tax for large businesses.
Every major company would have to show it had paid a set proportion of its turnover in corporation and other taxes or would face an additional charge to bring it up to the minimum. This would work as a back stop for the tax system and ensure that every big company pays a fair share of tax.
Like Nige on sex education last night and many other incidents they are simply making it up as they go along.
I wouldn't worry too much about UKIP policies on any given subject. They're like London buses. There will be another one along in a minute. And sometimes three arrive at once.
Their voters dont care what their policies are. They tick all the required boxes by scoring better on the "understands people like me" and "none of the above" scales, and being the only party with a coherent policy on immigration, and the only party which doesn't talk down to social conservatives, that will be sufficient to see them to 18-20% in the polls.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry.
It seems it is you that is angry, maybe because a significant and growing amount of people agree with UKIP and would think you were out of touch.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
That is absolute nonsense.
The key change to immigration policy would involve treating all prospective immigrants equally. The EU applicants would face the same procedures as the non-EU applicants.
That is a feature of a policy. It is not a policy.
Water companies allegedly ran up borrowing to reduce/eliminate their tax liabilities.
The most common tax dodge in the history of finance - going back 100 years - is the debt/equity switch.
Dividends come out of post tax income. Interest payments come out of pre tax.
That's how private equity companies, and leveraged buy out businesses work. They pile lots of (tax free) debt on business to maximise their payout (and minimise tax losses).
What would happen if companies were treated the same as individuals for tax purposes? HMRC don't increase my personal allowance if I take out a loan to put in a new bathroom or buy a car.
Until, from memory, 1964 there was no such thing as corporation tax. A tax on companies introduced by the Wilson government about then as an additional tax on profits and that has morphed into what we have now - an unmitigated mess that encourages avoidance and diverts very large sums into the pockets of clever accountants and lawyers.
Taxes should be easy to asses and collect and hard to avoid. An income tax on companies could do that and, set at the correct level, cost legitimate companies no more than they pay in corporation tax now. Of course the private equity companies would scream as there way of dumping on the tax payer would be removed and Amazon would be terribly upset that they might have to pay their share for the services and infrastructure on which their UK business depends.
And the UK is the fastest growing economy in the G7. And one of the top performers now in the world. He can continue to be useless if thats what the outcomes are. One really wonders what you must have thought of that colossus of No 11 Gordon when he started to place the country in trouble in 2003 and onwards finally slamming the UK into the fiscal brick wall in 2008?
Don't take my word for it just check all the warnings form the IMF and EU and others from 2003 onwards.
I hit a low yesterday when I found myself largely agreeing with a french bank on their view of the UK; read it and weep.
Did anyone hear about the "turnover" tax this morning - I can't think of anything worse, for instance in my industry one thing we do is Molybdenum sales to customers, these aren't marked up very much at all and a turnover tax would kill this business stone dead. Thats just one example, but it would crucify high turnover low margin business.
Haven't seen the details, but there should certainly be an exemption for commodity trading (in the proper sense like molybendum) and distribution businesses (I'd tend to look at gross profit instead of t/o)
The question is how can you capture economic activity in a country by people who use clever schemes to offshore their profits (eg Starbucks). T/o would be a sensible way of doing that, but not sure that it should be a straight tax on t/o
Country-by-country reporting and a GAAR is what is needed not a disastrous turnover tax. As Pulpstar says a tax on turnover annihilates low margin businesses. Country-by-country with a GAAR stops multi-nationals from playing shell games with their profits.
Proper GAAR is hard.
Multinationals have many, many ways to avoid tax. (I was looking through some old Amazon orders today and found a bunch of them were 'fulfilled' through Luxembourg and were subject to only 5% VAT - which kinda stuffs local traders... and which explains the disastrously ill thought out new EU VAT rules.)
The problem is "where do profits accrue"?
Transfer pricing is hard, and companies have good lawyers. They will always true and ensure that the 'value add' happens in low tax juristictions - so licensing fees will go to Ireland or the Caymans or Bermuda.
Could you just say, for instance, that royalty payments to an affiliate (US definition) are not deductible for UK corporation tax? It's more difficult with things like coffee bean roasting as it is clear that value is added in the Netherlands (Starbucks). I would also be stricter on cases where the customer and the transaction really occur in the UK but "fulfilment" is abroad. Amazon and Google are good examples of this.
I think that is very sensible. HMRC profit is already quite different to accounting profit.
LADBROKES ON THE HUNT FOR NEW CHIEF Richard Glynn has had plenty of questions about his position since taking charge of Britain's second-biggest bookie in 2010, and it seems he is finally on the way out.
Ladbrokes says it will begin a search for a successor in the New Year, and that Mr Glynn will remain in the post to ensure "an orderly transition".
Water companies allegedly ran up borrowing to reduce/eliminate their tax liabilities.
The most common tax dodge in the history of finance - going back 100 years - is the debt/equity switch.
Dividends come out of post tax income. Interest payments come out of pre tax.
That's how private equity companies, and leveraged buy out businesses work. They pile lots of (tax free) debt on business to maximise their payout (and minimise tax losses).
What would happen if companies were treated the same as individuals for tax purposes? HMRC don't increase my personal allowance if I take out a loan to put in a new bathroom or buy a car.
Until, from memory, 1964 there was no such thing as corporation tax. A tax on companies introduced by the Wilson government about then as an additional tax on profits and that has morphed into what we have now - an unmitigated mess that encourages avoidance and diverts very large sums into the pockets of clever accountants and lawyers.
Taxes should be easy to asses and collect and hard to avoid. An income tax on companies could do that and, set at the correct level, cost legitimate companies no more than they pay in corporation tax now. Of course the private equity companies would scream as there way of dumping on the tax payer would be removed and Amazon would be terribly upset that they might have to pay their share for the services and infrastructure on which their UK business depends.
Did anyone hear about the "turnover" tax this morning - I can't think of anything worse, for instance in my industry one thing we do is Molybdenum sales to customers, these aren't marked up very much at all and a turnover tax would kill this business stone dead. Thats just one example, but it would crucify high turnover low margin business.
Haven't seen the details, but there should certainly be an exemption for commodity trading (in the proper sense like molybendum) and distribution businesses (I'd tend to look at gross profit instead of t/o)
The question is how can you capture economic activity in a country by people who use clever schemes to offshore their profits (eg Starbucks). T/o would be a sensible way of doing that, but not sure that it should be a straight tax on t/o
Country-by-country reporting and a GAAR is what is needed not a disastrous turnover tax. As Pulpstar says a tax on turnover annihilates low margin businesses. Country-by-country with a GAAR stops multi-nationals from playing shell games with their profits.
Proper GAAR is hard.
Multinationals have many, many ways to avoid tax. (I was looking through some old Amazon orders today and found a bunch of them were 'fulfilled' through Luxembourg and were subject to only 5% VAT - which kinda stuffs local traders... and which explains the disastrously ill thought out new EU VAT rules.)
The problem is "where do profits accrue"?
Transfer pricing is hard, and companies have good lawyers. They will always true and ensure that the 'value add' happens in low tax juristictions - so licensing fees will go to Ireland or the Caymans or Bermuda.
Could you just say, for instance, that royalty payments to an affiliate (US definition) are not deductible for UK corporation tax? It's more difficult with things like coffee bean roasting as it is clear that value is added in the Netherlands (Starbucks). I would also be stricter on cases where the customer and the transaction really occur in the UK but "fulfilment" is abroad. Amazon and Google are good examples of this.
I think that is very sensible. HMRC profit is already quite different to accounting profit.
How about "management charges" - I think the ruling on those is that they are 'reasonable' currently.
Looking at it, Patrick O'Flynn proposed the turnover tax at the same time as the luxury goods tax.
I'm surprised Farage hasn't slapped him down on the turnover tax as he did on the luxury goods tax.
UKIP really are economic nationalists
UKIP proposes that a Treasury Commission, using the best brains of that elite Whitehall department, be set up to design a turnover tax for large businesses.
Every major company would have to show it had paid a set proportion of its turnover in corporation and other taxes or would face an additional charge to bring it up to the minimum. This would work as a back stop for the tax system and ensure that every big company pays a fair share of tax.
Like Nige on sex education last night and many other incidents they are simply making it up as they go along.
I wouldn't worry too much about UKIP policies on any given subject. They're like London buses. There will be another one along in a minute. And sometimes three arrive at once.
Their voters dont care what their policies are. They tick all the required boxes by scoring better on the "understands people like me" and "none of the above" scales, and being the only party with a coherent policy on immigration, and the only party which doesn't talk down to social conservatives, that will be sufficient to see them to 18-20% in the polls.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry.
It seems it is you that is angry, maybe because a significant and growing amount of people agree with UKIP and would think you were out of touch.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
Mr. Palmer, democratic societies have the right to elect governments which opt for a low taxation policy. Are you really saying that's an invalid choice? That free people should not be allowed to vote for a party of low taxes because you think it's wrong?
Mr. Antifrank, are you sure you haven't confused Nigel Farage for the Incredible Hulk?
Most of our laws are made by the EU - this strikes me as one area where it would be beneficial (Except to teeny tiny tax dodge countries Luxembourg/Lichtenstein etc) where a bit of cooperation would help. Not telling us our prisoners should vote or something. The EU's priorities are completely backward ass.
I thought the prisoner vote thing was to do with us being a signatory to the ECHR rather than the EU?
Isn't subbing up to the ECHR a condition of EU membership though ?
As we await Scottish Constituency polling, as an SNP ex-Labour supporter from Central Scotland, I thought I would give you my perspective on the SNP surge and its likely impact in May 2015.
My background, I’m Scottish but spent 20 years working in the City of London and witnessed the re-gentrification of London from the mid-1980s onwards, along with the massive infrastructure investment which enabled London to become an economic power house. I moved back to Scotland when my kids were of school age and I now live in the Stirling area.
Politics wise I had been a lifelong Labour supporter but started voting SNP in the 2011 Holyrood election and I voted Yes in the referendum based on my own research and conclusion that an independent Scotland would be better able to revitalise its economy, much like I witnessed in London during the 80s and 90s.
After the referendum, I joined the SNP, as the campaign had energized my interest in politics. The majority of people joining the SNP are motivated, working, new to politics, aged 25 to 55 and from a range of socio-economic backgrounds. Therefore, I think the media portrayal of the SNP surge as being driven by blind faith cyber-Nats is way off the mark and if anything will only keep driving up SNP membership. Similarly the SLAB demonising of the SNP is counterproductive as around 40 % of its traditional support base are currently supporting the SNP.
Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9 and SNP at 13/8. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Currently, UKIP and the Greens are each around the 5% mark.
Looking at Scotland more broadly, I think the SNP membership surge is pretty much across the board. The focus on Yes v No %s is only relevant in a small number of seats, as the No/Unionist vote in most seats is too dispersed to combat the SNP. For example, even in the Borders where the Yes vote was lowest at 33%, the SNP will still be nipping at David Mundel’s heels in Dumfries, particularly if UKIP field a candidate.
In terms of the incumbency factor, for many Unionist MPs this could end up being negative even for the vast majority of sitting Labour/LibDem MPs who were mainly silent during most of the referendum campaign.
Water companies allegedly ran up borrowing to reduce/eliminate their tax liabilities.
The most common tax dodge in the history of finance - going back 100 years - is the debt/equity switch.
Dividends come out of post tax income. Interest payments come out of pre tax.
That's how private equity companies, and leveraged buy out businesses work. They pile lots of (tax free) debt on business to maximise their payout (and minimise tax losses).
I do wonder whether there is an argument for limiting the deductibility of interest payments from tax (I'd also look at allowing a tax credit on retained earnings). Idea is to reduce the attractiveness of debt and increase the attractiveness of equity financing).
The other option to consider is limiting the ability to offset interest on shareholder loans against tax: they are often really equity by any other name & are often used to siphon profits offshore)
Problem is we joined an economic block which was set up to explicitly allow those sorts of arrangements, the chance of stopping them while in the EU, must quite fairly close to zero.
If we left the EU but had a free trade agreement with it, it would be much, much worse.
Amazon would simply move all its UK operations to Luxembourg. When the choice came between you buying from Joe Bloggs of Birmingham (20% VAT) or Amazon of Luxembourg (5% or 0% VAT), people would choose the latter and save 15% on all their purchases.
Of course, you could get rid of the Free Trade Agreement part, but that's not UKIP (or any other BOO-ers) policy.
Absolutely not. The lesson for governments in free trade areas generally is contrary to their initial expectation they are actually going to have to get used to the idea of having a lot less money to spend. When you consider how much lower UK productivity is than most of Asia, and hence how low the chances of pulling in significant amounts of new business outside of the City are, they need a trip to Starbucks, so they can smell the coffee.
Looking at it, Patrick O'Flynn proposed the turnover tax at the same time as the luxury goods tax.
I'm surprised Farage hasn't slapped him down on the turnover tax as he did on the luxury goods tax.
UKIP really are economic nationalists
UKIP proposes that a Treasury Commission, using the best brains of that elite Whitehall department, be set up to design a turnover tax for large businesses.
Every major company would have to show it had paid a set proportion of its turnover in corporation and other taxes or would face an additional charge to bring it up to the minimum. This would work as a back stop for the tax system and ensure that every big company pays a fair share of tax.
Like Nige on sex education last night and many other incidents they are simply making it up as they go along.
I wouldn't worry too much about UKIP policies on any given subject. They're like London buses. There will be another one along in a minute. And sometimes three arrive at once.
Their voters dont care what their policies are. They tick all the required boxes by scoring better on the "understands people like me" and "none of the above" scales, and being the only party with a coherent policy on immigration, and the only party which doesn't talk down to social conservatives, that will be sufficient to see them to 18-20% in the polls.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry.
It seems it is you that is angry, maybe because a significant and growing amount of people agree with UKIP and would think you were out of touch.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
Over the last five years, the finalised deficit has almost always been considerably lower than the initially reported deficit.
2009/2010 £163.4 bn is now £153.0 bn = £10.4bn less 2010/2011 £141.1 bn is now £133.9 bn = £7.2 bn less 2011/2012 £126.0 bn is now £112.4 bn = £13.6 bn less 2012/2013 £120.6 bn is now £119.4 bn = £1.2 bn less 2013/2014 £107.7 bn is now £ 97.5 bn = £10.2 bn less
Is that something Balls could use to argue against whatever additional cuts the government is likely to impose, and the scenario Osborne is likely to frame?
By talking up the scale of the deficit, the scope for spending or reining in cuts is simultaneously talked down.
Did anyone hear about the "turnover" tax this morning - I can't think of anything worse, for instance in my industry one thing we do is Molybdenum sales to customers, these aren't marked up very much at all and a turnover tax would kill this business stone dead. Thats just one example, but it would crucify high turnover low margin business.
Haven't seen the details, but there should certainly be an exemption for commodity trading (in the proper sense like molybendum) and distribution businesses (I'd tend to look at gross profit instead of t/o)
The question is how can you capture economic activity in a country by people who use clever schemes to offshore their profits (eg Starbucks). T/o would be a sensible way of doing that, but not sure that it should be a straight tax on t/o
Country-by-country reporting and a GAAR is what is needed not a disastrous turnover tax. As Pulpstar says a tax on turnover annihilates low margin businesses. Country-by-country with a GAAR stops multi-nationals from playing shell games with their profits.
Proper GAAR is hard.
Multinationals have many, many ways to avoid tax. (I was looking through some old Amazon orders today and found a bunch of them were 'fulfilled' through Luxembourg and were subject to only 5% VAT - which kinda stuffs local traders... and which explains the disastrously ill thought out new EU VAT rules.)
The problem is "where do profits accrue"?
Transfer pricing is hard, and companies have good lawyers. They will always true and ensure that the 'value add' happens in low tax juristictions - so licensing fees will go to Ireland or the Caymans or Bermuda.
Could you just say, for instance, that royalty payments to an affiliate (US definition) are not deductible for UK corporation tax? It's more difficult with things like coffee bean roasting as it is clear that value is added in the Netherlands (Starbucks). I would also be stricter on cases where the customer and the transaction really occur in the UK but "fulfilment" is abroad. Amazon and Google are good examples of this.
I placed an order for PC parts last year, it seems to have been fulfilled by Amazon S.a.r.l but the delivery was via "City Link"... I'd be fucking amazed if those parts came from Luxembourg. Should I send a message to HMRC ?
If you don't like the way they operate, why not purchase from a different supplier?
Seems like a no brainer, unless you object to paying higher prices of course.
I suspect Ukip's policies are being firmed up as they go along. A reasonable thing for a fledgling party to do when they're attracting support from a range of people. That's why the strident nastiness against their non-existent policies is so silly.
"I don't like policy A, I don't like Ukip, therefore they must support policy A. My justification - someone who claimed to be a Ukip voter once said it."
An analytical man like you, must surely see the flaws in that one.
If we left the EU but had a free trade agreement with it, it would be much, much worse.
Amazon would simply move all its UK operations to Luxembourg. When the choice came between you buying from Joe Bloggs of Birmingham (20% VAT) or Amazon of Luxembourg (5% or 0% VAT), people would choose the latter and save 15% on all their purchases.
Of course, you could get rid of the Free Trade Agreement part, but that's not UKIP (or any other BOO-ers) policy.
Precisely.
I keep telling them, but they don't seem to be able to get their heads around the point that leaving the EU is not a magic bullet which means you suddenly get everything you want with zero downside.
In practice, it is absolutely inconceivable that we would not retain 100% integration with EU VAT law, so I think nothing at all would change on this particular point if we were to leave the EU.
Looking at it, Patrick O'Flynn proposed the turnover tax at the same time as the luxury goods tax.
I'm surprised Farage hasn't slapped him down on the turnover tax as he did on the luxury goods tax.
UKIP really are economic nationalists
UKIP proposes that a Treasury Commission, using the best brains of that elite Whitehall department, be set up to design a turnover tax for large businesses.
Every major company would have to show it had paid a set proportion of its turnover in corporation and other taxes or would face an additional charge to bring it up to the minimum. This would work as a back stop for the tax system and ensure that every big company pays a fair share of tax.
Like Nige on sex education last night and many other incidents they are simply making it up as they go along.
I wouldn't worry too much about UKIP policies on any given subject. They're like London buses. There will be another one along in a minute. And sometimes three arrive at once.
Their voters dont care what their policies are. They tick all the required boxes by scoring better on the "understands people like me" and "none of the above" scales, and being the only party with a coherent policy on immigration, and the only party which doesn't talk down to social conservatives, that will be sufficient to see them to 18-20% in the polls.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry.
It seems it is you that is angry, maybe because a significant and growing amount of people agree with UKIP and would think you were out of touch.
Talk me through UKIP's coherent policy on immigration. It seems to consist largely of being angry
It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills. The nationality, skin colour, and religion of the potential immigrant would not be a factor.
What's the problem?
Another non-answer.
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
"It would be a points based system based that encouraged immigration in areas where we were short of the necessary skills"
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
I suspect Ukip's policies are being firmed up as they go along. A reasonable thing for a fledgling party to do when they're attracting support from a range of people. That's why the strident nastiness against their non-existent policies is so silly.
"I don't like policy A, I don't like Ukip, therefore they must support policy A. My justification - someone who claimed to be a Ukip voter once said it."
An analytical man like you, must surely see the flaws in that one.
So, the pitch is: "vote for Nigel, I'm a good bloke, and you can trust me to come up with good policies in due course, once I've smoked enough fags to write them all on enough fag packets".
Comments
However, assuming (and it a large assumption) that £75 million gets put into a maintenance fund, that is only enough for twenty years (and probably less, given that engineering maintenance costs increase over time). That means that the public will soon be footing out at least £3.5 million a year just to maintain this bridge.
I love engineering structures and architecture. But I cannot even 'get' the design of it: the green bridge at Mile End was at least designed to connect two existing parks together, creating a linear park from Stepney to Victoria Park. It made sense conceptually.
This seems nonsensical in comparison. It's a gimmick, and one (even if it costs the taxpayer 'only' £60 million to build), will create large costs for the taxpayer in the future.
The majority of national debt has been accumulated on the watch of Tory governments.
Danny Filkinstein in todays Times (in an article defenestrating Brown) points out that innocently but hillariously, Jim Murphy says of Brown that “We owe him a huge debt.” ....
The oddschecker pie charts that Mike sometimes references are not even a very good guide to the amount of bets placed. I can be sure of that because sometimes they are for markets that only Ladbrokes have prices on. They frequently bear no resemblance to actual betting activity.
I assume they just measure how many people click on a particular selection on the oddschecker site because they definitely do not correlate to bets taken or money staked. I expect on big markets they are probably a good approximation, but otherwise I wouldn't take much notice of them.
The question is how can you capture economic activity in a country by people who use clever schemes to offshore their profits (eg Starbucks). T/o would be a sensible way of doing that, but not sure that it should be a straight tax on t/o
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/01/gordon-brown-labour-lost-credibility-economy
I'm surprised Farage hasn't slapped him down on the turnover tax as he did on the luxury goods tax.
UKIP really are economic nationalists
UKIP proposes that a Treasury Commission, using the best brains of that elite Whitehall department, be set up to design a turnover tax for large businesses.
Every major company would have to show it had paid a set proportion of its turnover in corporation and other taxes or would face an additional charge to bring it up to the minimum. This would work as a back stop for the tax system and ensure that every big company pays a fair share of tax.
http://www.ukip.org/patrick_o_flynn_lays_out_ukip_s_economic_plan
You do seem to have a handle on economic affairs even if your political insight on Watford and Cambridge is fatally flawed.
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/g/3364076/Autumn-Statement.html
Other parts of Europe were much better: Ireland was 61.6, UK 58.6, Spain 52.7, Italy 51.8, Germany 52.1.
France - whatever SG says - is the sick man of Europe right now.
'Just like any chancellor, Mr Osborne is a politician with economic responsibilities, not an economist doing politics. And when it comes to politics, Mr Osborne is winning.
He may have failed to do what he said he would do on the public finances. He may have quietly adopted a plan he said would be a disaster for Britain. But he has still managed to persuade people that despite those failings and deviations, things would be worse under the other lot. The Conservatives remain more trusted of the economy than Labour.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11268104/George-Osborne-fails-economics-wins-politics.html
And fundraising is still ongoing. Just wait till they try to sell you a brick in the bridge
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2014/12/02/the-night-the-lib-dems-gave-up-their-last-remaining-principl
Titter ....
"For 2008, Starbucks filed a 26 million pounds loss in the UK. Yet CEO Schultz told an analysts' call that the UK business had been so successful he planned to take the lessons he had learnt there and apply them to the company's largest market - the United States. He also promoted Cliff Burrows, former head of the UK and Europe, to head the U.S. business."
In 2009, accounts filed in London claimed a record loss of 52 million pounds for the financial year to September 27, while CFO Alstead told investors on a call that the UK unit was "profitable."
Perhaps a bit of old fashioned law instead of accountancy is needed in this instance - if a company is found to be "grossly and aggressively" avoiding taxation in a country where it is producing turnover - investment calls/taxation being largely contradictory then it should be barred from trading in the UK ^_~.
I think Starbucks is guilty of that. Put it before a judge mayhaps.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/09/water-companies-tax-dodging-is-beyond-the-pail/
I think what Mr O'Flynn is proposing is something like the USA's 'alternative minimum tax', so that it's not possible to avoid paying any tax at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_minimum_tax
I think zero corporation tax would be better myself.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/10/23/it-doesnt-actually-matter-whether-facebook-pays-uk-corporation-tax-or-not/2/
Multinationals have many, many ways to avoid tax. (I was looking through some old Amazon orders today and found a bunch of them were 'fulfilled' through Luxembourg and were subject to only 5% VAT - which kinda stuffs local traders... and which explains the disastrously ill thought out new EU VAT rules.)
The problem is "where do profits accrue"?
Transfer pricing is hard, and companies have good lawyers. They will always true and ensure that the 'value add' happens in low tax juristictions - so licensing fees will go to Ireland or the Caymans or Bermuda.
Thanks again for the figures, but that does seem rather hopeful, and especially if/when the construction costs increase.
I still don't get the point of it: conceptually it seems bogus (to me at least), and there are several bridges within a few minutes walk. If it is needed, then why is it (as I think you're saying) tied in with the redevelopment of Temple tube?
For anyone wanting more info on the scheme, look at: http://www.gardenbridgetrust.org/files/Garden Bridge Environmental Statement Main Report Volume 1.pdf
But this is getting away from my original point: why the heck do engineering projects seem to cost so much more in this country than they do abroad? Land costs more, but that appears to be far from the whole story.
Dividends come out of post tax income.
Interest payments come out of pre tax.
That's how private equity companies, and leveraged buy out businesses work. They pile lots of (tax free) debt on business to maximise their payout (and minimise tax losses).
Angus (SNP)
Argyll & Bute (LIB DEM)
Banff & Buchan (SNP)
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross (LIB DEM)
Dundee East (SNP)
Dundee West (LABOUR)
East Dunbartonshire (LIB DEM)
Edinburgh West (LIB DEM)
Falkirk (IND, formerly LABOUR)
Gordon (LIB DEM)
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (LIB DEM)
Moray (SNP)
Na h-Eileanan an Iar (SNP)
Ochil & South Perthshire (LABOUR)
Perth & North Perthshire (SNP)
North East Fife (LIB DEM)
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (LIB DEM)
... however, these are the current SNP favourite seat bands:
Ladbrokes 31+ seats
Hills 26+ seats
... and the SNP line prices are (5/6 over or under):
Paddy Power 27.5 seats
Ladbrokes 25.5 seats
Betfair 24.5 seat
Something doesn't add up. Either the total SNP seat markets are seriously overplaying the likely extent of SNP gains, or else there are some stunning values available in certain individual seat markets.
Whatever, not everyone is right, therefore there is money to be made.
If I buy Morris Dancer's book from Amazon then clearly the transaction is entirely UK bound. If it goes through Luxembourg that is very clearly and obviously a tax dodge.
The company I work for could probably set up an operation in Luxembourg, give ourselves loans etc from it - it wouldn't be that hard. But we don't because it's clearly dodgy as fuck.
My plea to her that austerity should begin at home was met with a stare that went from frosty to ice-age in a nano second.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/11266664/Mapped-The-worlds-most-corrupt-officials.html
No shit Sherlock!
Edited extra bit: made a rare sale, via Amazon, in France in the last month or so. If such things were subject to the new EU insanity, I'd have to register for VAT in France. It baffles me how such an obviously indefensibly stupid law was dreamt up, let alone why it's going to be inflicted on us.
At the moment I think I'll be alright. Waiting for replies from Smashwords and HMRC.
"Much of what has been written about the Lib Dems over recent years has been unfair. None of Nick Clegg's armchair critics would have been able to make a better decision after the election in 2010. Of all the difficult options available to him, he made the least damaging one. In power, the Lib Dems have fought off plenty of really grotesque Tory policies and modified others. You can’t win an election on negative counterfactuals - no-one votes for what might have been if you hadn’t been around. But they had these battles nonetheless, to little public recognition. Plenty of Lib Dem critics enjoy a better life now than they would have had if the party wasn't in power.
The party also has some of the most intellectually and morally impressive advisers in Westminster. The people operating behind the scenes are typically free thinkers and unencumbered by the shackles of ideology and tribalism which so besets Labour and Conservative MPs. Those around Clegg are, in my experience, particularly impressive."
It then goes on to critise the LibDems for the vote on Judicial Reviews.
You get an intro to the article, and advert below it, then to continue reading the article you have to answer a multiple choice question which requires you to actually read the advert.
However, Amazon has already changed its spots. Excluding Kindle and digital downloads, Amazon now charges 20% VAT (probably after the VAT man pointed out that Amazon might have been 'taking' the order in Luxembourg, but was fulfilling it from Bedford). So, the VAT change is now a massive hassle for all small businesses across Europe.
(incumbent in first bracket) (SNP price in second bracket)
Aberdeen North (Lab) (11/10)
Aberdeen South (Lab) (7/4)
Airdrie & Shotts (Lab) (7/4)
Ayrshire Central (Lab) (2/1)
Ayrshire North & Arran (Lab) (11/10)
East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Lab) (2/1)
Edinburgh East (Lab) (13/8)
Edinburgh South West (Lab) (15/8)
Glasgow Central (Lab) (6/4)
Glasgow East (Lab) (6/4)
Glasgow North (Lab) (6/4)
Inverclyde (Lab) (6/4)
Kilmarnock & Loudoun (Lab) (13/8)
Lanark and Hamilton East (Lab) (11/8)
Linlithgow and Falkirk East (Lab) (5/4)
Livingston (Lab) (7/4)
Midlothian (Lab) (7/4)
Motherwell & Wishaw (Lab) (2/1)
Stirling (Lab) (13/8)
West Dunbartonshire (Lab) (EVS)
Economic performance in the Eurozone in 2011 was terrible. This impacted the ability for an "export-led recovery" (when was the last time we heard that?)
You can argue that Osborne's original plan was over-optimistic/unrealistic.
But to compare Osborne's outturn to Darling's plan without comparing Darling's assumptions to the actual outcomes is just crap analytics
Mr. Antifrank, are you sure you haven't confused Nigel Farage for the Incredible Hulk?
There is no need for government to "Pay down debt".
And how much interest is HMG currently paying annually?
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/542837/Ross-Clark-Starbucks-tax-avoidance-George-Osborne-autumn-statement
As for the Temple Tube redevelopment it's because the best "landing place" for the bridge is the roof of the current station...
- Scotland is breaking the cover-up that stifles our political thought.
- Bring the Highland Spring south http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/03/landowners-scotland-britain-feudal-highland-spring
Amazon would simply move all its UK operations to Luxembourg. When the choice came between you buying from Joe Bloggs of Birmingham (20% VAT) or Amazon of Luxembourg (5% or 0% VAT), people would choose the latter and save 15% on all their purchases.
Of course, you could get rid of the Free Trade Agreement part, but that's not UKIP (or any other BOO-ers) policy.
They still play this game on Kindle books and other digital downloads. Although that will have to change post the new EU VAT rules.
The key change to immigration policy would involve treating all prospective immigrants equally. The EU applicants would face the same procedures as the non-EU applicants.
This is surely not a new idea---I'm sure some punters think about it all the time---but I wonder what sort of correlation(s) there are between punters' odds, the polls percentages, and the results.
I am constantly amazed by the apparent degree to which comportment and delivery seem to encourage confidence and influence the result of an election. Is it in some way atavistic that such things seem important to many of us? My atavism takes the form that I wouldn't trust some politicians as far as I could throw them.
Until, from memory, 1964 there was no such thing as corporation tax. A tax on companies introduced by the Wilson government about then as an additional tax on profits and that has morphed into what we have now - an unmitigated mess that encourages avoidance and diverts very large sums into the pockets of clever accountants and lawyers.
Taxes should be easy to asses and collect and hard to avoid. An income tax on companies could do that and, set at the correct level, cost legitimate companies no more than they pay in corporation tax now. Of course the private equity companies would scream as there way of dumping on the tax payer would be removed and Amazon would be terribly upset that they might have to pay their share for the services and infrastructure on which their UK business depends.
Edit: Damn: I see that DavidL got there before me. That will teach me to respond to posts before reading the rest of the thread!
LADBROKES ON THE HUNT FOR NEW CHIEF
Richard Glynn has had plenty of questions about his position since taking charge of Britain's second-biggest bookie in 2010, and it seems he is finally on the way out.
Ladbrokes says it will begin a search for a successor in the New Year, and that Mr Glynn will remain in the post to ensure "an orderly transition".
Step forward Shadsy, your time has come!
What's the problem?
Farage on Floods - Gays, Diana and EU Blamed
My background, I’m Scottish but spent 20 years working in the City of London and witnessed the re-gentrification of London from the mid-1980s onwards, along with the massive infrastructure investment which enabled London to become an economic power house. I moved back to Scotland when my kids were of school age and I now live in the Stirling area.
Politics wise I had been a lifelong Labour supporter but started voting SNP in the 2011 Holyrood election and I voted Yes in the referendum based on my own research and conclusion that an independent Scotland would be better able to revitalise its economy, much like I witnessed in London during the 80s and 90s.
After the referendum, I joined the SNP, as the campaign had energized my interest in politics. The majority of people joining the SNP are motivated, working, new to politics, aged 25 to 55 and from a range of socio-economic backgrounds. Therefore, I think the media portrayal of the SNP surge as being driven by blind faith cyber-Nats is way off the mark and if anything will only keep driving up SNP membership. Similarly the SLAB demonising of the SNP is counterproductive as around 40 % of its traditional support base are currently supporting the SNP.
Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9 and SNP at 13/8. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Currently, UKIP and the Greens are each around the 5% mark.
Looking at Scotland more broadly, I think the SNP membership surge is pretty much across the board. The focus on Yes v No %s is only relevant in a small number of seats, as the No/Unionist vote in most seats is too dispersed to combat the SNP. For example, even in the Borders where the Yes vote was lowest at 33%, the SNP will still be nipping at David Mundel’s heels in Dumfries, particularly if UKIP field a candidate.
In terms of the incumbency factor, for many Unionist MPs this could end up being negative even for the vast majority of sitting Labour/LibDem MPs who were mainly silent during most of the referendum campaign.
The other option to consider is limiting the ability to offset interest on shareholder loans against tax: they are often really equity by any other name & are often used to siphon profits offshore)
If I had told you that eligibility for the dole was going to be determined on a way that did not reflect nationality, skin colour or religion, you would be dissatisfied about what that was going to mean in practice.
2009/2010 £163.4 bn is now £153.0 bn = £10.4bn less
2010/2011 £141.1 bn is now £133.9 bn = £7.2 bn less
2011/2012 £126.0 bn is now £112.4 bn = £13.6 bn less
2012/2013 £120.6 bn is now £119.4 bn = £1.2 bn less
2013/2014 £107.7 bn is now £ 97.5 bn = £10.2 bn less
Is that something Balls could use to argue against whatever additional cuts the government is likely to impose, and the scenario Osborne is likely to frame?
By talking up the scale of the deficit, the scope for spending or reining in cuts is simultaneously talked down.
Seems like a no brainer, unless you object to paying higher prices of course.
I suspect Ukip's policies are being firmed up as they go along. A reasonable thing for a fledgling party to do when they're attracting support from a range of people. That's why the strident nastiness against their non-existent policies is so silly.
"I don't like policy A, I don't like Ukip, therefore they must support policy A. My justification - someone who claimed to be a Ukip voter once said it."
An analytical man like you, must surely see the flaws in that one.
I keep telling them, but they don't seem to be able to get their heads around the point that leaving the EU is not a magic bullet which means you suddenly get everything you want with zero downside.
In practice, it is absolutely inconceivable that we would not retain 100% integration with EU VAT law, so I think nothing at all would change on this particular point if we were to leave the EU.
What part of that are you struggling with? Or do you just want a row?
I don't do any tax accounting on my side of the transaction ^_~ - and buy in good faith that the comapny I am buying from will pay it's "fair share"
Times are tough, and we need as much tax in as possible - seems this has happened already, as per rcs1000's posts.
You'll b pleased to hear I've not ordered off Amazon this year or indeed drunk at a Starbucks.
I suppose it might work for some.