Whenever I see a post on corporation tax that starts off by contrasting turnover with corporation tax paid, I tend to skip it in order to avoid increasing my blood pressure.
The second best ones are the ones that give the turnover for an entire sector, and then complain about the corporation tax paid by a single company.
The third best ones are the ones that give the turnover for a firm and its subsidiaries worldwide and then complain about the corporation tax it pays within the UK.
The cases that raise your blood pressure, whereby a single firm's UK turnover is compared to its UK corporation tax paid, is a measly fourth best.
(Of course, the very best ones are the ones which give a startling figure for the turnover of an entire sector, worldwide before complaining about the corporation tax paid by a single company, within the UK, but this is a lesser-spotted sight and therefore a collector's delight. Perhaps if you adopted such a connoisseur's approach to these matters, your blood pressure would be soothed.)
An elegant nuance can be observed when the post complains about the salaries paid to the directors (or the n highest paid staff) and contrasts that with the corporation tax, not bothering to note that substantially more tax (in the form of income tax and NICs) will have been paid as a result.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
But it's blindingly obvious that x is an artificial figure entirely removed from the profit facebook actually makes from their UK users.
Hence howls of outrage.
Ah- the x in question was the amount paid in bonuses. If it hadn't been paid in bonuses, it'd remain in the accounts. Given that they logged a loss of the order of a quarter of that number, they'd actually only have logged a profit of three-quarters of x at best.
You think that if they hadn't paid massive bonuses to their staff, they'd have just logged a profit (and paid tax on it) instead?
Richard thinks the status quo is what we're voting for and what Remain will mean. I do think that's naive.
I don't think Richard is naive in general nor do I disrespect him (in fact, quite the opposite) but I do think he really has his blinkers on when it comes to the EU.
I'm baffled as to why as he normally talks such sense.
You've misunderstood me. All I'm saying is that we know this beast - we've had 40 years to get to know it. So I do think I've got a very good idea of what the Remain side entails.
There would be little difference in leaving. All sides are being dishonest about this. Leaving inevitably means joining the EEA and really that means little effective change, except the definite issue that we would have no vote and no say and no commissioners. And no MEPs. This may well indeed be a good thing, to be out of the political side of the EU. However in all other real respects we would be no different and the EU would still do what if wanted.
@rcs1000 I suppose there is a theft/fire risk with physical notes though ^^; Or a holding charge if you want to keep them in the vaults of SwissBank Co.
They don't choose which rules to follow. They have to follow the ones in the original document, and the ones they have subsequently agreed to. What they don't have to follow is new directives the EU keeps on adding.
Sorry, this is just completely wrong. You've misunderstood what the document says. When it says:
If, despite protracted attempts to find a solution within the framework of EEA cooperation, a state finds it necessary to exercise its right of veto, the affected part of the annex to the EEA Agreement to which the new legislation in question belongs is regarded as being provisionally suspended between the EFTA pillar and the EU.
it is referring to the heading in the Annex you pointed to, eg 'Insurance', 'Banks and other credit institutions', etc
This makes perfect sense, of course. They can choose not to implement a measure, in which case that whole section of the agreement is suspended. In other words, either they accept all the EU directives on (say) insurance, or if they don't then they are no longer part of the Single Market in insurance.
Thus, in practice, unless they are prepared to junk the whole section, they have to implement the EU rules.
Whenever I see a post on corporation tax that starts off by contrasting turnover with corporation tax paid, I tend to skip it in order to avoid increasing my blood pressure.
The second best ones are the ones that give the turnover for an entire sector, and then complain about the corporation tax paid by a single company.
The third best ones are the ones that give the turnover for a firm and its subsidiaries worldwide and then complain about the corporation tax it pays within the UK.
The cases that raise your blood pressure, whereby a single firm's UK turnover is compared to its UK corporation tax paid, is a measly fourth best.
(Of course, the very best ones are the ones which give a startling figure for the turnover of an entire sector, worldwide before complaining about the corporation tax paid by a single company, within the UK, but this is a lesser-spotted sight and therefore a collector's delight. Perhaps if you adopted such a connoisseur's approach to these matters, your blood pressure would be soothed.)
An elegant nuance can be observed when the post complains about the salaries paid to the directors (or the n highest paid staff) and contrasts that with the corporation tax, not bothering to note that substantially more tax (in the form of income tax and NICs) will have been paid as a result.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
But it's blindingly obvious that x is an artificial figure entirely removed from the profit facebook actually makes from their UK users.
Hence howls of outrage.
Ah- the x in question was the amount paid in bonuses. If it hadn't been paid in bonuses, it'd remain in the accounts. Given that they logged a loss of the order of a quarter of that number, they'd actually only have logged a profit of three-quarters of x at best.
You think that if they hadn't paid massive bonuses to their staff, they'd have just logged a profit (and paid tax on it) instead?
Don't know if they would or wouldn't. What I do know is that a lot more tax got paid from that money than would have been paid if they had done just that.
Richard thinks the status quo is what we're voting for and what Remain will mean. I do think that's naive.
I don't think Richard is naive in general nor do I disrespect him (in fact, quite the opposite) but I do think he really has his blinkers on when it comes to the EU.
I'm baffled as to why as he normally talks such sense.
You've misunderstood me. All I'm saying is that we know this beast - we've had 40 years to get to know it. So I do think I've got a very good idea of what the Remain side entails.
And you still want to stay despite all that history and misgivings, some of which you lucidly articulated downthread.
Fair enough but I find that desperately disappointing.
In a low interest rate environment, you need to have a bigger savings pot to ensure you are able to retire. Low interest rates can, therefore, encourage higher savings rates, and therefore have the opposite effect of what central bankers desire.
Sounds plausible to me. Savers for retirement may be satisficers rather than maximisers.
In a low interest rate environment, you need to have a bigger savings pot to ensure you are able to retire. Low interest rates can, therefore, encourage higher savings rates, and therefore have the opposite effect of what central bankers desire.
Sounds plausible to me. Savers for retirement may be satisficers rather than maximisers.
Comments
New Thread New Thread
Leaving inevitably means joining the EEA and really that means little effective change, except the definite issue that we would have no vote and no say and no commissioners. And no MEPs. This may well indeed be a good thing, to be out of the political side of the EU. However in all other real respects we would be no different and the EU would still do what if wanted.
.....
A government that only ever does the nice things is a work of fiction.
If, despite protracted attempts to find a solution within the framework of EEA cooperation, a state finds it necessary to exercise its right of veto, the affected part of the annex to the EEA Agreement to which the new legislation in question belongs is regarded as being provisionally suspended between the EFTA pillar and the EU.
it is referring to the heading in the Annex you pointed to, eg 'Insurance', 'Banks and other credit institutions', etc
This makes perfect sense, of course. They can choose not to implement a measure, in which case that whole section of the agreement is suspended. In other words, either they accept all the EU directives on (say) insurance, or if they don't then they are no longer part of the Single Market in insurance.
Thus, in practice, unless they are prepared to junk the whole section, they have to implement the EU rules.
Fair enough but I find that desperately disappointing.