politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, could be a tricky on

John McDonnell first came to prominence in 2007 when he sought to run against Gordon Brown for the party leadership. Unfortunately for him the Brown camp launched a massive effort to ensure that so many of the then PLP backed their man that there weren’t enough left over to get McDonnell on the ballot.
Comments
-
Buy-to-let landlords are now lost to Labour however.0
-
FPT:
Thanks to Ed Miliband's stupid energy policies and the idiocy of the coalition in not repealing them it looks like all energy intensive industries are going bankrupt in the UK. We still need the steel and aluminium, and production of both is very energy intensive and has a high level of emissions. All we are doing is shifting the emissions to China and India along with the jobs. Our need for steel and aluminium hasn't gone away now that we don't produce the stuff, just the jobs and skills.SandyRentool said:
We will need huge quantities of steel in the building of HS2. Unfortunately, thanks to GO, it looks like it will all be coming from China.MikeK said:Teeside Steel has gone kaput. Sad but expected, steel is declining product as new forms of plastics and ultra metals come to the fore. For example, armoured vehicles are now using lighter and stronger means of defence.
Ed Miliband and Ed Davey need to answer for this, so does Osborne who should have pushed the anti-green agenda harder from 2010-2015.
0 -
The Tories will be happy as they now have nowhere else to go, give Osborne carte blanche to squeeze the scumbags as hard as he wants.rottenborough said:Buy-to-let landlords are now lost to Labour however.
0 -
Seema Mulhotra on the DP said that McDonnel's speech would "wipe the smirk of George Osborne's face"
There are no words to describe the level of delusion the Labour Party are currently operating under0 -
Someone on Sky said SSI's energy costs were 8% higher due to green taxes. Is that accurate?
No wonder they've moth balled the site.MaxPB said:FPT:
Thanks to Ed Miliband's stupid energy policies and the idiocy of the coalition in not repealing them it looks like all energy intensive industries are going bankrupt in the UK. We still need the steel and aluminium, and production of both is very energy intensive and has a high level of emissions. All we are doing is shifting the emissions to China and India along with the jobs. Our need for steel and aluminium hasn't gone away now that we don't produce the stuff, just the jobs and skills.SandyRentool said:
We will need huge quantities of steel in the building of HS2. Unfortunately, thanks to GO, it looks like it will all be coming from China.MikeK said:Teeside Steel has gone kaput. Sad but expected, steel is declining product as new forms of plastics and ultra metals come to the fore. For example, armoured vehicles are now using lighter and stronger means of defence.
Ed Miliband and Ed Davey need to answer for this, so does Osborne who should have pushed the anti-green agenda harder from 2010-2015.0 -
@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome0 -
About that, but it will rise to around 20% higher than market rate in 2020, there is no case for any investment in energy intensive industry in the UK. We might manufacture cars and other high vale goods, but we will be importing the basic raw materials for them for the foreseeable future thanks to idiotic energy policy.Plato_Says said:Someone on Sky said SSI's energy costs were 8% higher due to green taxes. Is that accurate?
No wonder they've moth balled the site.MaxPB said:FPT:
Thanks to Ed Miliband's stupid energy policies and the idiocy of the coalition in not repealing them it looks like all energy intensive industries are going bankrupt in the UK. We still need the steel and aluminium, and production of both is very energy intensive and has a high level of emissions. All we are doing is shifting the emissions to China and India along with the jobs. Our need for steel and aluminium hasn't gone away now that we don't produce the stuff, just the jobs and skills.SandyRentool said:
We will need huge quantities of steel in the building of HS2. Unfortunately, thanks to GO, it looks like it will all be coming from China.MikeK said:Teeside Steel has gone kaput. Sad but expected, steel is declining product as new forms of plastics and ultra metals come to the fore. For example, armoured vehicles are now using lighter and stronger means of defence.
Ed Miliband and Ed Davey need to answer for this, so does Osborne who should have pushed the anti-green agenda harder from 2010-2015.0 -
Rubbish. Making foreign companies pay tax in the UK is fair. The government have also recognised this and are making big moves in forcing companies to fall in line. Labour are late to this party. Very late.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome0 -
there is no case for any investment in energy intensive industry in the UK.
Who will lay this at the door of the culprits, which to be honest includes all the major parties.0 -
I'm in favour of having lower CTax rates so they pay their taxes from the whole of the EU here myself!Scott_P said:
@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome0 -
Scott_P said:
@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
Pressure from Osbourne already garnered some success as Starbucks to pay living wage and offer interest free loans to employees. A good start.0 -
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6542/migration-crisis-islam-will-conquer-europe
"Migration Crisis: "Islam Will Conquer Europe Without Firing a Shot"0 -
Someone I know says the current thinking is that in order to avoid an energy shortfall (blackouts) from 2018-2025 we need to push industry out of the UK because we aren't building new capacity at a fast enough rate. The policy may be intended to do this. I don't know if he is right, but I can see the logic. There are not many votes lost for losing industry, but there are many, many votes lost for blackouts.taffys said:there is no case for any investment in energy intensive industry in the UK.
Who will lay this at the door of the culprits, which to be honest includes all the major parties.0 -
Osborne played this smart. He was a forceful part of the international movement for all companies to pay tax somewhere. With his record low Corporation Tax rate, he wants that somewhere to be here.MaxPB said:
Rubbish. Making foreign companies pay tax in the UK is fair. The government have also recognised this and are making big moves in forcing companies to fall in line. Labour are late to this party. Very late.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
Labour will kill all that good work, at a stroke. McDonnell needs to learn Marquee Mark's Maxim: Money Flees Taxation....0 -
Does every thread have to become a thread about your hatred of a particular religion? You sounds like a broken record.MikeK said:http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6542/migration-crisis-islam-will-conquer-europe
"Migration Crisis: "Islam Will Conquer Europe Without Firing a Shot"0 -
Err
The mob which attacked a trendy cereal café in protest against the 'gentrification' of London's East End are planning a new demonstration against the Jack the Ripper museum.
Class War, the anti-capitalist movement behind Saturday's 'F*** London Parade', will campaign outside the establishment on Sunday amid claims the 'misogynist freak show' is contributing to the 'tsunami of wealth' flooding Brick Lane and the surrounding neighbourhood.
Protesters say the new tourist attraction - which was previously used as an informal social centre for the Somalian community - glorifies sexual violence and is the 'final straw' in the area's 'social cleansing and colonisation by the international rich'.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3251961/We-driven-tsunami-wealth-Hipster-hating-gang-attacked-trendy-east-London-cafe-plan-new-protest-against-Jack-Ripper-Museum.html#ixzz3n2HfoS7z
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook0 -
I thought his presentation was a bit wooden and hesitant as he kept looking at his notes. But when he left his notes (e.g. to rail at Osborne's hypocrisy in sucking up to the Chinese giving UK taxpayer promises to guarantee Chinese statebacked loans for Hinckley ffs) then he showed his powers of oratory.
The content was fine - mainly broad principles that are likely to gather fairly wide support rather than costed policies - but that's OK, indeed sensible at this stage.
A good start - but he needs to relax and let his passion show more. A bit dangerous I know and he knows.0 -
Bottom line is if these policies were not acceptable in May 2015 how on earth do they expect a more lunatic variety to be acceptable at the next election.
SCOTE- The recovery is happening despite not because of the present government.
Well I guess it's a step forward from triple dip recessions and talking Britain down all the time (remember that little gem from the Labour camp). They do at least now accept begrudgingly there is a recovery.
SCOTE - Blanchflower supports me and my polices.
Blanchflower .... Errr No.
Debacle on debacle.0 -
Corp tax is an area where I'd like to see an agreed global rate of say 18% or so ! Obviously it'll never happen, but its an area where harmonising would help everyone (Though Monaco, Bermuda, Lichtenstein and a few others probably wouldn't agreePlato_Says said:I'm in favour of having lower CTax rates so they pay their taxes from the whole of the EU here myself!
Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome)
0 -
I'm sure Mr. Smithson is making threads up as he goes. Mc Donnell speech was hesitant, mediocre and banal. Michael White is just the type to say that the shadow chancellor was impressive, being such an unimpressive luke warm socialist himself.0
-
Labour can do nothing while they remain wedded to the EU and the single market. That is what permits Amazon to set up in Luxembourg and sell into the UK. Or indeed vice versa. The perennial claims that because Amazon is selling to so many UK persons and taking money from those persons it should therefore pay tax on the profit made from such sales shows a misunderstanding of the consequences of the single market, the right of establishment anywhere in the EU and the consequences this has for tax law. A number of recent ECJ cases have made matters harder for national governments as well.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
If Labour want to be credible on this and test and test again their policies they need to come up with some real properly thought through policies that a proper tax expert has looked at thoroughly to check that they really work - and I don't meant that booby, Richard Murphy.
Everyone wants fair tax and it costs nothing to say it. Having a system that actually works is much much harder.
(Personally I'd tax Starbucks out of existence but only on the basis that their coffee is quite disgusting.....).0 -
Migration Crisis: "Islam Will Conquer Europe Without Firing a Shot"
The failed foreign policies of the EU and the US under President Obama, have brought the Arabs to the brink of chaos, and destroyed regimes which, even though they were not democratic utopias, at least provided governance and public order. These failed policies have abandoned the Arabs to the atrocities of the Sunni Islamists and to the murderous proxies of the Iranian Islamic Revolution -- and are ultimately the cause of the tsunami of refugees beating at the gates of Europe.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6542/migration-crisis-islam-will-conquer-europe0 -
Just for some balance which was missing from the thread header:
Laura Kuensberg:
"Most delegates pretty happy with speech - MPs less convinced"
This seems to me the most important point.
0 -
I try hard not to be perjorative, but my overwhelming impression of the current Shadow cabinet is, bluntly, they're a bit thick. Long on emotion and short on rationality.Cyclefree said:
Labour can do nothing while they remain wedded to the EU and the single market. That is what permits Amazon to set up in Luxembourg and sell into the UK. Or indeed vice versa. The perennial claims that because Amazon is selling to so many UK persons and taking money from those persons it should therefore pay tax on the profit made from such sales shows a misunderstanding of the consequences of the single market, the right of establishment anywhere in the EU and the consequences this has for tax law. A number of recent ECJ cases have made matters harder for national governments as well.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
If Labour want to be credible on this and test and test again their policies they need to come up with some real properly thought through policies that a proper tax expert has looked at thoroughly to check that they really work - and I don't meant that booby, Richard Murphy.
Everyone wants fair tax and it costs nothing to say it. Having a system that actually works is much much harder.
(Personally I'd tax Starbucks out of existence but only on the basis that their coffee is quite disgusting.....).
The long term thinking we need to address systemic national issues (e.g. economy, health, education, energy, defence, immigration) is entirely missing. Instead we get some turnip ranting on about 'gas chambers'. Doubtless to rapturous applause.0 -
''Everyone wants fair tax and it costs nothing to say it. Having a system that actually works is much much harder.''
Owen Jones has just tweeted that home ownership amongst people under 34 is collapsing. He should keep quiet. It makes these people much more likely to vote labour.
The tories must do more.0 -
If Amazon was forced to pay a fair level of UK Corporation Tax, they would have to put up prices to maintain their current level of after tax profit. That would be great as it would allow UK companies including many independent booksellers to compete on a more level playing field.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
In practice, I suspect Amazon would take the hit and not raise prices in order to maintain their market share.
Either way your conclusion doesn't follow. If it did we'd pay a subsidy to companies to keep their prices down. Oh - we do. We pay tax credits to the working poor to enable retailers to pay below subsistence wages to compete on price. Mmm.0 -
Balls/cans kicked down the road...
Nice to see someone on the backbenches for decades rebelling throughout now accuse those sitting there and not 'serving' as refusing to display party solidarity...0 -
What I have published doesn't make it less true because I cannot stand Islam. Actually I think all religions are bunkum, but other religions don't want be to convert or die.Philip_Thompson said:
Does every thread have to become a thread about your hatred of a particular religion? You sounds like a broken record.MikeK said:http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6542/migration-crisis-islam-will-conquer-europe
"Migration Crisis: "Islam Will Conquer Europe Without Firing a Shot"0 -
This thread is not about Islam Please desist.MikeK said:
What I have published doesn't make it less true because I cannot stand Islam. Actually I think all religions are bunkum, but other religions don't want be to convert or die.Philip_Thompson said:
Does every thread have to become a thread about your hatred of a particular religion? You sounds like a broken record.MikeK said:http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6542/migration-crisis-islam-will-conquer-europe
"Migration Crisis: "Islam Will Conquer Europe Without Firing a Shot"
0 -
I agree that religions are bunkum but so are some of your most alarmist claims.MikeK said:
What I have published doesn't make it less true because I cannot stand Islam. Actually I think all religions are bunkum, but other religions don't want be to convert or die.Philip_Thompson said:
Does every thread have to become a thread about your hatred of a particular religion? You sounds like a broken record.MikeK said:http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6542/migration-crisis-islam-will-conquer-europe
"Migration Crisis: "Islam Will Conquer Europe Without Firing a Shot"
The world's largest Muslim nation has over 25 million Christians in it who aren't converting or dying. About equivalent to five times the population of Scotland.0 -
To be fair, there are almost certainly almost 5 years before the next election. Plenty of time fill in the details, having sketched in the broad outlines.John_M said:
I try hard not to be perjorative, but my overwhelming impression of the current Shadow cabinet is, bluntly, they're a bit thick. Long on emotion and short on rationality.Cyclefree said:
Labour can do nothing while they remain wedded to the EU and the single market. That is what permits Amazon to set up in Luxembourg and sell into the UK. Or indeed vice versa. The perennial claims that because Amazon is selling to so many UK persons and taking money from those persons it should therefore pay tax on the profit made from such sales shows a misunderstanding of the consequences of the single market, the right of establishment anywhere in the EU and the consequences this has for tax law. A number of recent ECJ cases have made matters harder for national governments as well.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
If Labour want to be credible on this and test and test again their policies they need to come up with some real properly thought through policies that a proper tax expert has looked at thoroughly to check that they really work - and I don't meant that booby, Richard Murphy.
Everyone wants fair tax and it costs nothing to say it. Having a system that actually works is much much harder.
(Personally I'd tax Starbucks out of existence but only on the basis that their coffee is quite disgusting.....).
The long term thinking we need to address systemic national issues (e.g. economy, health, education, energy, defence, immigration) is entirely missing. Instead we get some turnip ranting on about 'gas chambers'. Doubtless to rapturous applause.0 -
A spokesman for Vodafone said:
Quote It is disappointing that this has been raised again. There was no truth in the allegations in the past and there are none now. As we have made clear on numerous occasions, Vodafone has always paid its taxes and for the last financial year we paid around £360 million in direct taxes in the UK.
"It requires huge investment to build and maintain our network, which is relied upon by businesses and consumers up and down the country and we have invested heavily in the UK over the last few years, spending more than £1 billion on our network and services last year. As a result of that investment and the very competitive market, we make minimal profits (£41 million) in the UK. As the Government wants to promote investment in essential infrastructure like ours, the UK tax rules mean that reliefs for our investment are set against the profits we make. In addition the Government understands that we have to borrow huge sums of money to be able to invest for the long term, so they allow us to take the interest we pay on those borrowings off our profit too. Corporation tax is then paid on any balance – this is the same rule that applies to all UK companies large and small.”0 -
Subsidy?Barnesian said:Either way your conclusion doesn't follow. If it did we'd pay a subsidy to companies to keep their prices down. Oh - we do. We pay tax credits to the working poor to enable retailers to pay below subsistence wages to compete on price. Mmm.
If tax credits and the minimum wage were to be abolished overnight do you think that the lowest wages would go up or down?0 -
There are no words to describe the level of delusion the Labour Party are currently operating under
A delusion that seems to be spreading to the Lib Dems also0 -
I would investigate a corporation tax, for all companies with a UK turnover in excess of say £100m, that was the higher of the computed tax or say 2% of UK sales. It would be unambiguous and hard to dodge. As you say, it would need to be thoroughly tested for unintended consequences and against EU tax law.Cyclefree said:
Labour can do nothing while they remain wedded to the EU and the single market. That is what permits Amazon to set up in Luxembourg and sell into the UK. Or indeed vice versa. The perennial claims that because Amazon is selling to so many UK persons and taking money from those persons it should therefore pay tax on the profit made from such sales shows a misunderstanding of the consequences of the single market, the right of establishment anywhere in the EU and the consequences this has for tax law. A number of recent ECJ cases have made matters harder for national governments as well.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
If Labour want to be credible on this and test and test again their policies they need to come up with some real properly thought through policies that a proper tax expert has looked at thoroughly to check that they really work - and I don't meant that booby, Richard Murphy.
Everyone wants fair tax and it costs nothing to say it. Having a system that actually works is much much harder.
(Personally I'd tax Starbucks out of existence but only on the basis that their coffee is quite disgusting.....).0 -
Driving rental property ownership away from individual private landlords into the hands of a few tax avoiding corporations will do nothing to ease the supply of affordable homes, nor the cost of renting.MaxPB said:
The Tories will be happy as they now have nowhere else to go, give Osborne carte blanche to squeeze the scumbags as hard as he wants.rottenborough said:Buy-to-let landlords are now lost to Labour however.
Boosting the numbers of houses and flats built, will.0 -
McDonnell was absolutely pathetic on Today this morning. He has already back-tracked or U-turned on almost everything the Corbyn campaign won its mandate on. His record of supporting hate, violence and economic lunacy speaks for itself.
He is going to be as easy a foe for Osborne as many expected. The fact that he has just given a speech of empty platitudes doesn't alter that.0 -
It would be interesting to have a comparison with other European countries. My impression is that the rates of home ownership are generally lower and that the age at which people become home owners is much higher. The key is not so much home ownership as having homes to live in in a way which allows people to plan their lives, have a family etc. Good quality long-term rental properties are also a sensible option.taffys said:''Everyone wants fair tax and it costs nothing to say it. Having a system that actually works is much much harder.''
Owen Jones has just tweeted that home ownership amongst people under 34 is collapsing. He should keep quiet. It makes these people much more likely to vote labour.
The tories must do more.
An economy cannot just be built around selling overpriced terraced houses to each other. Surely?
0 -
On topic, Osborne has seen off Gordon Brown, Alastair Darling, Alan Johnson and Ed Balls as Labour's economic spokesmen. Why should McDonnell be any different?
(OK, that might be stretching it for Brown, who left No11 to go to No10, but Osborne did cause fatal damage to Brown's 2007 GE hopes as well as his 2010 ones).0 -
I honestly came away from his speech thinking that sounded just like EdM/Ed Balls with a bit more silly rhetoric.Richard_Nabavi said:
McDonnell was absolutely pathetic on Today this morning. He has already back-tracked or U-turned on almost everything the Corbyn campaign won its mandate on. His record of supporting hate and lunacy speaks for itself.
He is going to be as easy a foe for Osborne as many expected. The fact that he has just given a speech of empty platitudes doesn't alter that.0 -
So you'd level corporation tax even if a company makes a loss?Barnesian said:
I would investigate a corporation tax, for all companies with a UK turnover in excess of say £100m, that was the higher of the computed tax or say 2% of UK sales. It would be unambiguous and hard to dodge. As you say, it would need to be thoroughly tested for unintended consequences and against EU tax law.Cyclefree said:
Labour can do nothing while they remain wedded to the EU and the single market. That is what permits Amazon to set up in Luxembourg and sell into the UK. Or indeed vice versa. The perennial claims that because Amazon is selling to so many UK persons and taking money from those persons it should therefore pay tax on the profit made from such sales shows a misunderstanding of the consequences of the single market, the right of establishment anywhere in the EU and the consequences this has for tax law. A number of recent ECJ cases have made matters harder for national governments as well.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
If Labour want to be credible on this and test and test again their policies they need to come up with some real properly thought through policies that a proper tax expert has looked at thoroughly to check that they really work - and I don't meant that booby, Richard Murphy.
Everyone wants fair tax and it costs nothing to say it. Having a system that actually works is much much harder.
(Personally I'd tax Starbucks out of existence but only on the basis that their coffee is quite disgusting.....).
Corporation tax is a tax on profits not turnover. VAT is the tax on turnover. If you want to tax turnover more lets just abolish corporation tax and increase VAT.0 -
Superb performance by the Peoples Chancellor.John McDonnell gave a commitment to evidence-based policy,fair,progressive taxation and a balanced revenue budget,just as he did at the GLC.Prudence is back.0
-
So all companies losing money - computed tax =nil- will pay tax at 2% of turnover.Barnesian said:
I would investigate a corporation tax, for all companies with a UK turnover in excess of say £100m, that was the higher of the computed tax or say 2% of UK sales. It would be unambiguous and hard to dodge. As you say, it would need to be thoroughly tested for unintended consequences and against EU tax law.Cyclefree said:
Labour can do nothing while they remain wedded to the EU and the single market. That is what permits Amazon to set up in Luxembourg and sell into the UK. Or indeed vice versa. The perennial claims that because Amazon is selling to so many UK persons and taking money from those persons it should therefore pay tax on the profit made from such sales shows a misunderstanding of the consequences of the single market, the right of establishment anywhere in the EU and the consequences this has for tax law. A number of recent ECJ cases have made matters harder for national governments as well.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
If Labour want to be credible on this and test and test again their policies they need to come up with some real properly thought through policies that a proper tax expert has looked at thoroughly to check that they really work - and I don't meant that booby, Richard Murphy.
Everyone wants fair tax and it costs nothing to say it. Having a system that actually works is much much harder.
(Personally I'd tax Starbucks out of existence but only on the basis that their coffee is quite disgusting.....).
Only someone who has not done the sums and has no idea of what he/she is writing can propose such a tax. It would bankrupt at a stroke any company losing money..
0 -
Brilliant idea. The cost of paying VAT ultimately falls on the end consumer, companies claiming back their cost and passing on the balance to HMG.Philip_Thompson said:
So you'd level corporation tax even if a company makes a loss?Barnesian said:
I would investigate a corporation tax, for all companies with a UK turnover in excess of say £100m, that was the higher of the computed tax or say 2% of UK sales. It would be unambiguous and hard to dodge. As you say, it would need to be thoroughly tested for unintended consequences and against EU tax law.Cyclefree said:
Labour can do nothing while they remain wedded to the EU and the single market. That is what permits Amazon to set up in Luxembourg and sell into the UK. Or indeed vice versa. The perennial claims that because Amazon is selling to so many UK persons and taking money from those persons it should therefore pay tax on the profit made from such sales shows a misunderstanding of the consequences of the single market, the right of establishment anywhere in the EU and the consequences this has for tax law. A number of recent ECJ cases have made matters harder for national governments as well.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
If Labour want to be credible on this and test and test again their policies they need to come up with some real properly thought through policies that a proper tax expert has looked at thoroughly to check that they really work - and I don't meant that booby, Richard Murphy.
Everyone wants fair tax and it costs nothing to say it. Having a system that actually works is much much harder.
(Personally I'd tax Starbucks out of existence but only on the basis that their coffee is quite disgusting.....).
Corporation tax is a tax on profits not turnover. VAT is the tax on turnover. If you want to tax turnover more lets just abolish corporation tax and increase VAT.0 -
An economy cannot just be built around selling overpriced terraced houses to each other. Surely?
I don;t know. We have half a dozen hard working young people between 25/35 at our company and they all either live with parents or rent. Not one is a property owner, and the only reason is prices are way above what they can afford. I think that is wrong. THey should at least have a shot at owning something, even if it is a few boxes in Whitechapel or Peckham.0 -
Radio 4 World at 1 the Labour MP Anna Turley was very good on the Steel Plant closure. She actually raised the issue of green levies being higher in the UK than they are elsewhere in Europe as something she wanted to see action on. Typically this point was dropped from the later questioning of James Wharton. The BBC instead focused on calls for nationalisation, obviously unable to cope with questioning green policies.0
-
Indeed. If Labour wanted a competent, middle-of-the-road candidate to put sensible ideas forward, why pick John McDonnell to do the job?Richard_Nabavi said:McDonnell was absolutely pathetic on Today this morning. He has already back-tracked or U-turned on almost everything the Corbyn campaign won its mandate on. His record of supporting hate, violence and economic lunacy speaks for itself.
He is going to be as easy a foe for Osborne as many expected. The fact that he has just given a speech of empty platitudes doesn't alter that.0 -
Motherhood and apple pie, socialist version. Warm words, no detail.volcanopete said:Superb performance by the Peoples Chancellor.John McDonnell gave a commitment to evidence-based policy,fair,progressive taxation and a balanced revenue budget,just as he did at the GLC.Prudence is back.
0 -
Mr P,
"There are no words to describe the level of delusion the Labour Party are currently operating under."
Not a lot to choose between McDonnell's platitudes and George's cunning political stunts. You pays your money ...
Jezza is now a semi-detached leader who will allow his members to set the agenda (as long as they come up with the right answer). Might work in the short term as Labour MPs aren't renowned for bravery.
As Automatic sang ...
"What's that coming over the hill? Deselection, deselection."0 -
London is now a Tier 1 global capital. Young people are never going to be able to compete with someone from Shanghai looking to park money from overseas, unless we ban foreign ownership. Sadly, many need to accept that, and move on.taffys said:An economy cannot just be built around selling overpriced terraced houses to each other. Surely?
I don;t know. We have half a dozen hard working young people between 25/35 at our company and they all either live with parents or rent. Not one is a property owner, and the only reason is prices are way above what they can afford. I think that is wrong. THey should at least have a shot at owning something, even if it is a few boxes in Whitechapel or Peckham.0 -
Interesting question. In the longer term, fewer people would be able to survive in their current homes on the low wages without tax credits. They would either leave their employment and survive on unemployment and housing benefits or move to a cheaper part of the country. Either way there would a reduction in supply of labour and wages would have to be raised to attract people back into work. Removing the subsidy would mean higher wages but with a lot of pain.Philip_Thompson said:
Subsidy?Barnesian said:Either way your conclusion doesn't follow. If it did we'd pay a subsidy to companies to keep their prices down. Oh - we do. We pay tax credits to the working poor to enable retailers to pay below subsistence wages to compete on price. Mmm.
If tax credits and the minimum wage were to be abolished overnight do you think that the lowest wages would go up or down?
Osborne has the right idea but is implementing it in a brutal way. The increase in minimum wages has to be at the same pace as the reduction in benefits.0 -
@bbclaurak: One senior MP tellls me speech was only 30% of what Corbyn and McDonnell want to do0
-
What's stopping them?Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: One senior MP tellls me speech was only 30% of what Corbyn and McDonnell want to do
0 -
Increasing the supply of housing is key. But the choice should not be between living with your parents and owning. Long-term rental can also be an option. Put it this way, how many of the equivalent group of people in Italy or Germany would be owning their home at that age?taffys said:An economy cannot just be built around selling overpriced terraced houses to each other. Surely?
I don;t know. We have half a dozen hard working young people between 25/35 at our company and they all either live with parents or rent. Not one is a property owner, and the only reason is prices are way above what they can afford. I think that is wrong. THey should at least have a shot at owning something, even if it is a few boxes in Whitechapel or Peckham.
There are assets other than a house. The only reason we think of property as an asset with capital appreciation is because the supply is low and the demand high. Increase the supply and you are affecting the likely price inflation. In many ways this would be a good thing. It might be better - long-term - if people made decisions about home ownership more soberly than just desperation to own a few boxes in Peckham.
0 -
Ed Davy... LD member of coalition. To which party did the business secretary belong?Plato_Says said:Someone on Sky said SSI's energy costs were 8% higher due to green taxes. Is that accurate?
No wonder they've moth balled the site.MaxPB said:FPT:
Thanks to Ed Miliband's stupid energy policies and the idiocy of the coalition in not repealing them it looks like all energy intensive industries are going bankrupt in the UK. We still need the steel and aluminium, and production of both is very energy intensive and has a high level of emissions. All we are doing is shifting the emissions to China and India along with the jobs. Our need for steel and aluminium hasn't gone away now that we don't produce the stuff, just the jobs and skills.SandyRentool said:
We will need huge quantities of steel in the building of HS2. Unfortunately, thanks to GO, it looks like it will all be coming from China.MikeK said:Teeside Steel has gone kaput. Sad but expected, steel is declining product as new forms of plastics and ultra metals come to the fore. For example, armoured vehicles are now using lighter and stronger means of defence.
Ed Miliband and Ed Davey need to answer for this, so does Osborne who should have pushed the anti-green agenda harder from 2010-2015.
Oh, who was chief secretary to the treasury then and who was deputy PM.
And of course what was the deficit which needed reducing?0 -
That is why I proposed that it should only be for companies with a UK turnover in excess of £100m. It would exclude all but the biggest comnpanies. You could further refine it to apply only to multinationals who are making a profit somewhere else. You don't want to bankrupt loss-making companies but you do want to catch the big ones who are declaring their profits offshore.madasafish said:
So all companies losing money - computed tax =nil- will pay tax at 2% of turnover.Barnesian said:
I would investigate a corporation tax, for all companies with a UK turnover in excess of say £100m, that was the higher of the computed tax or say 2% of UK sales. It would be unambiguous and hard to dodge. As you say, it would need to be thoroughly tested for unintended consequences and against EU tax law.Cyclefree said:
Labour can do nothing while they remain wedded to the EU and the single market. That is what permits Amazon to set up in Luxembourg and sell into the UK. Or indeed vice versa. The perennial claims that because Amazon is selling to so many UK persons and taking money from those persons it should therefore pay tax on the profit made from such sales shows a misunderstanding of the consequences of the single market, the right of establishment anywhere in the EU and the consequences this has for tax law. A number of recent ECJ cases have made matters harder for national governments as well.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
If Labour want to be credible on this and test and test again their policies they need to come up with some real properly thought through policies that a proper tax expert has looked at thoroughly to check that they really work - and I don't meant that booby, Richard Murphy.
Everyone wants fair tax and it costs nothing to say it. Having a system that actually works is much much harder.
(Personally I'd tax Starbucks out of existence but only on the basis that their coffee is quite disgusting.....).
Only someone who has not done the sums and has no idea of what he/she is writing can propose such a tax. It would bankrupt at a stroke any company losing money..0 -
Totally off topic, but god bless the DVLA - I sold my vehicle, legally, but it was near the end of its insurance period so I got a letter shortly after stating this and asking me to confirm who I sold it to and when, which I did.
I've now received a penalty notice for not insuring, and the great thing is the 'dispute offence' form on the back, which states I'm still liable for the offence if I didn't receive written confirmation back from them by before the date of the penalty notice. As I've not had confirmation back from them that everything had indeed gone through alright, so i'll have to pay and their phone service literally won't put you through to a human being (it will hang up on you) unless you just pay up.
So now I can't declare it SORN because I'm not the registered keeper of the vehicle, there's clearly not much point in writing them a letter to say so as they didn't acknowledge the last one within 4 weeks, and I cannot find any way to speak to someone to let them know, so Im not sure how to avoid further fines.0 -
The stupid electorateRobD said:
What's stopping them?Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: One senior MP tellls me speech was only 30% of what Corbyn and McDonnell want to do
.
0 -
On house prices, if you want them to go down there is little mileage in attacking buy-to-letters.
The fundamentals are (a) mass immigration putting pressure on demand, and (b) lack of building for various reasons. Deal with the fundamentals and prices will come back into line with wages over time.
I agree that long-term rentals should also be an option in the mix.
0 -
There's no point in McDonnell going for Buy to Letters, beyond rhetoric.MarkHopkins said:
On house prices, if you want them to go down there is little mileage in attacking buy-to-letters.
The fundamentals are (a) mass immigration putting pressure on demand, and (b) lack of building for various reasons. Deal with the fundamentals and prices will come back into line with wages over time.
I agree that long-term rentals should also be an option in the mix.
Osborne just shot that fox.
He also seemed to be going on about Vodaphone, Starbucks etc, none of whom were significantly at fault.
And there were several straight errors of fact.
Being rude, I mainly just heard a caveman making grunting noises to impress the dinosaurs.0 -
Why do we need to accept that London should be a base for people from Shanghai to park their money in? Maybe London should be more than just a bank for Bigwigs from Richistan. Shouldn't a left-wing party be looking at just these sorts of things? Other countries do impose some limits on foreigners buying property.watford30 said:
London is now a Tier 1 global capital. Young people are never going to be able to compete with someone from Shanghai looking to park money from overseas, unless we ban foreign ownership. Sadly, many need to accept that, and move on.taffys said:An economy cannot just be built around selling overpriced terraced houses to each other. Surely?
I don;t know. We have half a dozen hard working young people between 25/35 at our company and they all either live with parents or rent. Not one is a property owner, and the only reason is prices are way above what they can afford. I think that is wrong. THey should at least have a shot at owning something, even if it is a few boxes in Whitechapel or Peckham.
There is a difference, after all, between being welcoming and being flat on your back with your legs in the air. (Apologies in advance.....)
0 -
What's all this 'green taxes' rubbish?flightpath01 said:
Ed Davy... LD member of coalition. To which party did the business secretary belong?Plato_Says said:Someone on Sky said SSI's energy costs were 8% higher due to green taxes. Is that accurate?
No wonder they've moth balled the site.MaxPB said:FPT:
Thanks to Ed Miliband's stupid energy policies and the idiocy of the coalition in not repealing them it looks like all energy intensive industries are going bankrupt in the UK. We still need the steel and aluminium, and production of both is very energy intensive and has a high level of emissions. All we are doing is shifting the emissions to China and India along with the jobs. Our need for steel and aluminium hasn't gone away now that we don't produce the stuff, just the jobs and skills.SandyRentool said:
We will need huge quantities of steel in the building of HS2. Unfortunately, thanks to GO, it looks like it will all be coming from China.MikeK said:Teeside Steel has gone kaput. Sad but expected, steel is declining product as new forms of plastics and ultra metals come to the fore. For example, armoured vehicles are now using lighter and stronger means of defence.
Ed Miliband and Ed Davey need to answer for this, so does Osborne who should have pushed the anti-green agenda harder from 2010-2015.
All power stations cost money, the nuclear ones cost a lot of money being built and being decommissioned, coal and gas power stations aren't cheap. Also they all cost money to run, except renewables which are extremely low cost to run. Some people on here seem to be anti investment in renewables as a matter of principle.
Then there's the advantage of becoming more self sufficient and lessening the chances of being held to ransom by foreign energy suppliers including Putin in the future.0 -
Or they'll live with more people and share the burden of housing costs, eg young adults living with their parents.Barnesian said:
Interesting question. In the longer term, fewer people would be able to survive in their current homes on the low wages without tax credits. They would either leave their employment and survive on unemployment and housing benefits or move to a cheaper part of the country. Either way there would a reduction in supply of labour and wages would have to be raised to attract people back into work. Removing the subsidy would mean higher wages but with a lot of pain.Philip_Thompson said:
Subsidy?Barnesian said:Either way your conclusion doesn't follow. If it did we'd pay a subsidy to companies to keep their prices down. Oh - we do. We pay tax credits to the working poor to enable retailers to pay below subsistence wages to compete on price. Mmm.
If tax credits and the minimum wage were to be abolished overnight do you think that the lowest wages would go up or down?
Osborne has the right idea but is implementing it in a brutal way. The increase in minimum wages has to be at the same pace as the reduction in benefits.
Either way its not a subsidy.0 -
Agreed.MarkHopkins said:
On house prices, if you want them to go down there is little mileage in attacking buy-to-letters.
The fundamentals are (a) mass immigration putting pressure on demand, and (b) lack of building for various reasons. Deal with the fundamentals and prices will come back into line with wages over time.
I agree that long-term rentals should also be an option in the mix.0 -
Example of McDonnell being gormless:
Cuts to the billion pound tax breaks given to buy to let landlords for repairing their properties, whether they undertake the repairs or not.
To abolish the 10% wear and tear allowance was in Osbo's budget in July.
The only basis available in future will already be on the basis of receipts.0 -
It's still rubbish...Barnesian said:
That is why I proposed that it should only be for companies with a UK turnover in excess of £100m. It would exclude all but the biggest comnpanies. You could further refine it to apply only to multinationals who are making a profit somewhere else. You don't want to bankrupt loss-making companies but you do want to catch the big ones who are declaring their profits offshore.madasafish said:
So all companies losing money - computed tax =nil- will pay tax at 2% of turnover.Barnesian said:
I would investigate a corporation tax, for all companies with a UK turnover in excess of say £100m, that was the higher of the computed tax or say 2% of UK sales. It would be unambiguous and hard to dodge. As you say, it would need to be thoroughly tested for unintended consequences and against EU tax law.Cyclefree said:Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
Only someone who has not done the sums and has no idea of what he/she is writing can propose such a tax. It would bankrupt at a stroke any company losing money..
Consider this A multinational company has a UK subsidiary which has made no money for a couple of years and is running out of cash. It needs to invest £100M in a new product to regain market share ..(eg the car industry).
It borrows it from the banks. at 4% interest..Cost £4M a year..
So it is now losing £4M a year.. Its turnover is £500M a year . So its tax will be 2% x £500m - £10M. So it's net after tax loss for the year is £14M.
And the same happens for two years until the new model comes on stream..
So extra taxes charged because it invests money are £30M.
It would be better off closing it down and investing elsewhere where taxation allows for losses to be carried forward against tax.
You do not appear to have any knowledge of how UK taxation works in principle or practise. On your proposal NO_ONE would buy any loss making business but close it down ASAP.
To put it kindly, you are speaking rubbish.
0 -
I had a similar dispute, Mr Klee4, with the people who run the Dart Ctarge. A penalty had been issued incorrectly in respect of a hire car (details on request) and I wrote to the address shown on the website.kle4 said:Totally off topic, but god bless the DVLA - I sold my vehicle, legally, but it was near the end of its insurance period so I got a letter shortly after stating this and asking me to confirm who I sold it to and when, which I did.
I've now received a penalty notice for not insuring, and the great thing is the 'dispute offence' form on the back, which states I'm still liable for the offence if I didn't receive written confirmation back from them by before the date of the penalty notice. As I've not had confirmation back from them that everything had indeed gone through alright, so i'll have to pay and their phone service literally won't put you through to a human being (it will hang up on you) unless you just pay up.
So now I can't declare it SORN because I'm not the registered keeper of the vehicle, there's clearly not much point in writing them a letter to say so as they didn't acknowledge the last one within 4 weeks, and I cannot find any way to speak to someone to let them know, so Im not sure how to avoid further fines.
No answer.
So I wrote again, recorded delivery.
Still no answer.
Then I found a phone number, and I was told by the person in their call centre that while she could see there was a mistake, there was nothing that could be done. She also told me they didn’t answer letters.
So I complained to the local MP as) about the mistake and b) about the appalling attitude of the offical who spoke to me. She, or at least her office, sorted things out pretty sharply. to my total satisfaction.0 -
I seem to remember that these companies were found to have done nothing wrong.MaxPB said:
Rubbish. Making foreign companies pay tax in the UK is fair. The government have also recognised this and are making big moves in forcing companies to fall in line. Labour are late to this party. Very late.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
McDonnell is making the Margaret Hodge Bodge - he's attacking companies who operate according to the law rather than according to his personal idea of what he wants.
He can seek to reform the Law, but to attack people who obey it is a disgrace.
Or of course they could have reformed the law between 1997 and 2010. They didn't.0 -
To abolish the 10% wear and tear allowance was in Osbo's budget in July.MattW said:Example of McDonnell being gormless:
Cuts to the billion pound tax breaks given to buy to let landlords for repairing their properties, whether they undertake the repairs or not.
The only basis available in future will already be on the basis of receipts.
They appear to have done zero basic research.. It's the Murphy guy who is the epitome of an incompetent accountant..0 -
Corporation tax is on profit.Barnesian said:
If Amazon was forced to pay a fair level of UK Corporation Tax, they would have to put up prices to maintain their current level of after tax profit. That would be great as it would allow UK companies including many independent booksellers to compete on a more level playing field.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
Amazon invest rather than make profits, ergo no Corporation Tax is due while the strategy persists.
0 -
If they don't answer letters, then they are not going to have much luck in pursuing their case, are they? Just write to the head honcho, recorded delivery, pointing that out and saying that you look forward to hearing their lawyer in court explaining why they ignored your letters.OldKingCole said:She also told me they didn’t answer letters..
0 -
Maybe they found an old draft speech in the LotO offices? That seems the most plausible thing right nowmadasafish said:
To abolish the 10% wear and tear allowance was in Osbo's budget in July.MattW said:Example of McDonnell being gormless:
Cuts to the billion pound tax breaks given to buy to let landlords for repairing their properties, whether they undertake the repairs or not.
The only basis available in future will already be on the basis of receipts.
They appear to have done zero basic research.. It's the Murphy guy who is the epitome of an incompetent accountant..
0 -
for companies that operate with a margin below 2% then what?Barnesian said:
That is why I proposed that it should only be for companies with a UK turnover in excess of £100m. It would exclude all but the biggest comnpanies. You could further refine it to apply only to multinationals who are making a profit somewhere else. You don't want to bankrupt loss-making companies but you do want to catch the big ones who are declaring their profits offshore.madasafish said:
So all companies losing money - computed tax =nil- will pay tax at 2% of turnover.Barnesian said:
I would investigate a corporation tax, for all companies with a UK turnover in excess of say £100m, that was the higher of the computed tax or say 2% of UK sales. It would be unambiguous and hard to dodge. As you say, it would need to be thoroughly tested for unintended consequences and against EU tax law.Cyclefree said:
Labour can do nothing while they remain wedded to the EU and the single market. That is what permits Amazon to set up in Luxembourg and sell into the UK. Or indeed vice versa. The perennial claims that because Amazon is selling to so many UK persons and taking money from those persons it should therefore pay tax on the profit made from such sales shows a misunderstanding of the consequences of the single market, the right of establishment anywhere in the EU and the consequences this has for tax law. A number of recent ECJ cases have made matters harder for national governments as well.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
If Labour want to be credible on this and test and test again their policies they need to come up with some real properly thought through policies that a proper tax expert has looked at thoroughly to check that they really work - and I don't meant that booby, Richard Murphy.
Everyone wants fair tax and it costs nothing to say it. Having a system that actually works is much much harder.
(Personally I'd tax Starbucks out of existence but only on the basis that their coffee is quite disgusting.....).
Only someone who has not done the sums and has no idea of what he/she is writing can propose such a tax. It would bankrupt at a stroke any company losing money..0 -
If it is a multinational making profit eleswhere, it would loan its UK subsidiary the £100m, possibly borrowing it offshore and offset any interest paid against the profit it is making elsewhere.madasafish said:
It's still rubbish...Barnesian said:
That is why I proposed that it should only be for companies with a UK turnover in excess of £100m. It would exclude all but the biggest comnpanies. You could further refine it to apply only to multinationals who are making a profit somewhere else. You don't want to bankrupt loss-making companies but you do want to catch the big ones who are declaring their profits offshore.madasafish said:
So all companies losing money - computed tax =nil- will pay tax at 2% of turnover.Barnesian said:
I would investigate a corporation tax, for all companies with a UK turnover in excess of say £100m, that was the higher of the computed tax or say 2% of UK sales. It would be unambiguous and hard to dodge. As you say, it would need to be thoroughly tested for unintended consequences and against EU tax law.Cyclefree said:Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
Only someone who has not done the sums and has no idea of what he/she is writing can propose such a tax. It would bankrupt at a stroke any company losing money..
Consider this A multinational company has a UK subsidiary which has made no money for a couple of years and is running out of cash. It needs to invest £100M in a new product to regain market share ..(eg the car industry).
It borrows it from the banks. at 4% interest..Cost £4M a year..
So it is now losing £4M a year.. Its turnover is £500M a year . So its tax will be 2% x £500m - £10M. So it's net after tax loss for the year is £14M.
And the same happens for two years until the new model comes on stream..
So extra taxes charged because it invests money are £30M.
It would be better off closing it down and investing elsewhere where taxation allows for losses to be carried forward against tax.
You do not appear to have any knowledge of how UK taxation works in principle or practise. On your proposal NO_ONE would buy any loss making business but close it down ASAP.
To put it kindly, you are speaking rubbish.
You can see what the objective is, and you can raise objections. How about possible solutions?0 -
Renewables are not cheap to run. The initial investment is very high , and wind power suffers from a lack of wind at times so back up power supplies (eg coal/gas) need to be on hand at all times. The net effect is a cost per KWH far higher than any other means...logical_song said:
What's all this 'green taxes' rubbish?flightpath01 said:
Ed Davy... LD member of coalition. To which party did the business secretary belong?Plato_Says said:Someone on Sky said SSI's energy costs were 8% higher due to green taxes. Is that accurate?
No wonder they've moth balled the site.MaxPB said:FPT:
Thanks to Ed Miliband's stupid energy policies and the idiocy of the coalition in not repealing them it looks like all energy intensive industries are going bankrupt in the UK. We still need the steel and aluminium, and production of both is very energy intensive and has a high level of emissions. All we are doing is shifting the emissions to China and India along with the jobs. Our need for steel and aluminium hasn't gone away now that we don't produce the stuff, just the jobs and skills.SandyRentool said:
We will need huge quantities of steel in the building of HS2. Unfortunately, thanks to GO, it looks like it will all be coming from China.MikeK said:Teeside Steel has gone kaput. Sad but expected, steel is declining product as new forms of plastics and ultra metals come to the fore. For example, armoured vehicles are now using lighter and stronger means of defence.
Ed Miliband and Ed Davey need to answer for this, so does Osborne who should have pushed the anti-green agenda harder from 2010-2015.
All power stations cost money, the nuclear ones cost a lot of money being built and being decommissioned, coal and gas power stations aren't cheap. Also they all cost money to run, except renewables which are extremely low cost to run. Some people on here seem to be anti investment in renewables as a matter of principle.
Then there's the advantage of becoming more self sufficient and lessening the chances of being held to ransom by foreign energy suppliers including Putin in the future.
Of course, if we had blue skies all the time or the wind blew every day.. but this is not true.
More recent UK estimates are the Mott MacDonald study released by DECC in June 2010[42] and the Arup study for DECC published in 2011.[43]
UK LCOE in £/MWh (2010)
Technology Cost range (£/MWh)[42]
Natural gas turbine, no CO2 capture 55 – 110
Natural gas turbines with CO2 capture 60 – 130
Biomass 60 – 120
New nuclear(a) 80 – 105
Onshore wind 80 – 110
Coal with CO2 capture 100 – 155
Solar farms 125 – 180
Offshore wind 150 – 210
Tidal power 155 – 390
http://tinyurl.com/oxkv2o40 -
You came up with a silly idea and are now demanding others justify for it using nonsense like this.
Just accept it's a daft notion.Barnesian said:
If it is a multinational making profit eleswhere, it would loan its UK subsidiary the £100m, possibly borrowing it offshore and offset any interest paid against the profit it is making elsewhere.madasafish said:
It's still rubbish...Barnesian said:
That is why I proposed that it should only be for companies with a UK turnover in excess of £100m. It would exclude all but the biggest comnpanies. You could further refine it to apply only to multinationals who are making a profit somewhere else. You don't want to bankrupt loss-making companies but you do want to catch the big ones who are declaring their profits offshore.madasafish said:
So all companies losing money - computed tax =nil- will pay tax at 2% of turnover.Barnesian said:
I would investigate a corporation tax, for all companies with a UK turnover in excess of say £100m, that was the higher of the computed tax or say 2% of UK sales. It would be unambiguous and hard to dodge. As you say, it would need to be thoroughly tested for unintended consequences and against EU tax law.Cyclefree said:Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
Only someone who has not done the sums and has no idea of what he/she is writing can propose such a tax. It would bankrupt at a stroke any company losing money..
Consider this A multinational company has a UK subsidiary which has made no money for a couple of years and is running out of cash. It needs to invest £100M in a new product to regain market share ..(eg the car industry).
It borrows it from the banks. at 4% interest..Cost £4M a year..
So it is now losing £4M a year.. Its turnover is £500M a year . So its tax will be 2% x £500m - £10M. So it's net after tax loss for the year is £14M.
And the same happens for two years until the new model comes on stream..
So extra taxes charged because it invests money are £30M.
It would be better off closing it down and investing elsewhere where taxation allows for losses to be carried forward against tax.
You do not appear to have any knowledge of how UK taxation works in principle or practise. On your proposal NO_ONE would buy any loss making business but close it down ASAP.
To put it kindly, you are speaking rubbish.
You can see what the objective is, and you can raise objections. How about possible solutions?0 -
A mixed energy supply!y is no bad thing. But basing it on green policy is daft. Renewables still need to be maintained and linked to the grid; this is expensive and still uses lots of steel and concrete. Labour and LDs were far too slow and doctrinaire in developing nuclear. Now the same people are opposing shale.logical_song said:
What's all this 'green taxes' rubbish?flightpath01 said:
Ed Davy... LD member of coalition. To which party did the business secretary belong?Plato_Says said:Someone on Sky said SSI's energy costs were 8% higher due to green taxes. Is that accurate?
No wonder they've moth balled the site.MaxPB said:FPT:
Thanks to Ed Miliband's stupid energy policies and the idiocy of the coalition in not repealing them it looks like all energy intensive industries are going bankrupt in the UK. We still need the steel and aluminium, and production of both is very energy intensive and has a high level of emissions. All we are doing is shifting the emissions to China and India along with the jobs. Our need for steel and aluminium hasn't gone away now that we don't produce the stuff, just the jobs and skills.SandyRentool said:
We will need huge quantities of steel in the building of HS2. Unfortunately, thanks to GO, it looks like it will all be coming from China.MikeK said:Teeside Steel has gone kaput. Sad but expected, steel is declining product as new forms of plastics and ultra metals come to the fore. For example, armoured vehicles are now using lighter and stronger means of defence.
Ed Miliband and Ed Davey need to answer for this, so does Osborne who should have pushed the anti-green agenda harder from 2010-2015.
All power stations cost money, the nuclear ones cost a lot of money being built and being decommissioned, coal and gas power stations aren't cheap. Also they all cost money to run, except renewables which are extremely low cost to run. Some people on here seem to be anti investment in renewables as a matter of principle.
Then there's the advantage of becoming more self sufficient and lessening the chances of being held to ransom by foreign energy suppliers including Putin in the future.0 -
Would have been one way, true, but the Government has “responsibility” and so someone is (or ought to ber) eventually answerable in Parliament.Richard_Nabavi said:
If they don't answer letters, then they are not going to have much luck in pursuing their case, are they? Just write to the head honcho, recorded delivery, pointing that out and saying that you look forward to hearing their lawyer in court explaining why they ignored your letters.OldKingCole said:She also told me they didn’t answer letters..
And I didn’t have to pay anyone; scanned my letters and emailed them to the MP’s office.0 -
There's a certain amount of Schadenfreude around because Sir Richard of Murphalot, who isn't on the panel of Advisers, is 0.2 of a Professor at City University in Political Economy.madasafish said:
They appear to have done zero basic research.. It's the Murphy guy who is the epitome of an incompetent accountant..
Meanwhile, 2 other staff members at City University *are* on the panel of Advisers.
Oh to have a bug at that water cooler...
Heh. I see that Mr Murphy has openly speculated about "Lord Murphy".
No. Must be constructive. Back to work.0 -
Alternatively, they could always introduce a hefty parking charge I suppose, Mr Watford, before there are no English people left in London.watford30 said:London is now a Tier 1 global capital. Young people are never going to be able to compete with someone from Shanghai looking to park money from overseas, unless we ban foreign ownership. Sadly, many need to accept that, and move on.
0 -
So?Barnesian said:
If it is a multinational making profit eleswhere, it would loan its UK subsidiary the £100m, possibly borrowing it offshore and offset any interest paid against the profit it is making elsewhere.madasafish said:
It's still rubbish...Barnesian said:
That is why I proposed that it should only be for companies with a UK turnover in excess of £100m. It would exclude all but the biggest comnpanies. You could further refine it to apply only to multinationals who are making a profit somewhere else. You don't want to bankrupt loss-making companies but you do want to catch the big ones who are declaring their profits offshore.madasafish said:
So all companies losing money - computed tax =nil- will pay tax at 2% of turnover.Barnesian said:
I would investigate a corporation tax, for all companies with a UK turnover in excess of say £100m, that was the higher of the computed tax or say 2% of UK sales. It would be unambiguous and hard to dodge. As you say, it would need to be thoroughly tested for unintended consequences and against EU tax law.Cyclefree said:Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
Only someone who has not done the sums and has no idea of what he/she is writing can propose such a tax. It would bankrupt at a stroke any company losing money..
Consider this A multinational company has a UK subsidiary which has made no money for a couple of years and is running out of cash. It needs to invest £100M in a new product to regain market share ..(eg the car industry).
It borrows it from the banks. at 4% interest..Cost £4M a year..
So it is now losing £4M a year.. Its turnover is £500M a year . So its tax will be 2% x £500m - £10M. So it's net after tax loss for the year is £14M.
And the same happens for two years until the new model comes on stream..
So extra taxes charged because it invests money are £30M.
It would be better off closing it down and investing elsewhere where taxation allows for losses to be carried forward against tax.
You do not appear to have any knowledge of how UK taxation works in principle or practise. On your proposal NO_ONE would buy any loss making business but close it down ASAP.
To put it kindly, you are speaking rubbish.
You can see what the objective is, and you can raise objections. How about possible solutions?
Asking me to help your inability to propose a sensible solution is risible. YOU were the one who proposed rubbish.0 -
No it would close down the company and move it elsewhere, as would be perfectly logical. The solution is not to do completely counter-productive moves like this and to have a tax on profits that is leveled on accrued profits, not turnover.Barnesian said:If it is a multinational making profit eleswhere, it would loan its UK subsidiary the £100m, possibly borrowing it offshore and offset any interest paid against the profit it is making elsewhere.
You can see what the objective is, and you can raise objections. How about possible solutions?0 -
They make "no" profits after clever transfer pricing. That is where a global agreement is needed . All countries are losers except ultimately, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, etc....MattW said:
Corporation tax is on profit.Barnesian said:
If Amazon was forced to pay a fair level of UK Corporation Tax, they would have to put up prices to maintain their current level of after tax profit. That would be great as it would allow UK companies including many independent booksellers to compete on a more level playing field.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
Amazon invest rather than make profits, ergo no Corporation Tax is due while the strategy persists.
0 -
Some perspective on foreign buying of London property:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-11/foreign-buyers-aren-t-ruining-world-s-great-cities
0 -
I couldn't agree more. He knew he was preaching to the converted (or those pretending to be to maintain any semblance of unity) and played it for their applause which may as well have been auto-cued unlike his "speech". Corbynistas are desperate to be seen as "new" but I was unclear whether JS wanted us to be Greece or the Soviet Union.MikeK said:I'm sure Mr. Smithson is making threads up as he goes. Mc Donnell speech was hesitant, mediocre and banal. Michael White is just the type to say that the shadow chancellor was impressive, being such an unimpressive luke warm socialist himself.
Who was that awful woman that AN tried to interview afterwards. No wonder JS made such a point about the refusers coming back in to help. I didn't think when he said it that he was sincere (JS insincere, shurly not) but having seen that interview, I think he might well have been. Who knows? Labour truly is in the altogether.0 -
You can exempt companies whose worldwide net margin is under 2% (or say 5% to be generous). You'd still catch the big profit making tax avoiders.Philip_Thompson said:
for companies that operate with a margin below 2% then what?Barnesian said:
That is why I proposed that it should only be for companies with a UK turnover in excess of £100m. It would exclude all but the biggest comnpanies. You could further refine it to apply only to multinationals who are making a profit somewhere else. You don't want to bankrupt loss-making companies but you do want to catch the big ones who are declaring their profits offshore.madasafish said:
So all companies losing money - computed tax =nil- will pay tax at 2% of turnover.Barnesian said:
I would investigate a corporation tax, for all companies with a UK turnover in excess of say £100m, that was the higher of the computed tax or say 2% of UK sales. It would be unambiguous and hard to dodge. As you say, it would need to be thoroughly tested for unintended consequences and against EU tax law.Cyclefree said:Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
(Personally I'd tax Starbucks out of existence but only on the basis that their coffee is quite disgusting.....).
Only someone who has not done the sums and has no idea of what he/she is writing can propose such a tax. It would bankrupt at a stroke any company losing money..
It is relatively easy to manipulate profit levels within a multinational between different countries by internal charging of patent rights, management fees, loan interest etc etc. That's how they avoid tax in high tax countires and place their profit in very low or nil taxpaying countries. HMRC could really tighten up on these practices - the Double Dutch, Delaware, Puerto Rico,the Irish play.etc. I think there is a lot of scope to gather corporate tax. We shouldn't throw up our hands and say it is too difficult.0 -
PClipp..Oh yes there are.. I spent most of last week meeting and socialising with lots of English Londoners..They all live in Chelsea, Ealing, Kensington, Battersea and Fulham0
-
That doesn't seem to be true. Amazon genuinely don't make profits. See Yglesias:surbiton said:
They make "no" profits after clever transfer pricing. That is where a global agreement is needed . All countries are losers except ultimately, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, etc....MattW said:
Corporation tax is on profit.Barnesian said:
If Amazon was forced to pay a fair level of UK Corporation Tax, they would have to put up prices to maintain their current level of after tax profit. That would be great as it would allow UK companies including many independent booksellers to compete on a more level playing field.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
Amazon invest rather than make profits, ergo no Corporation Tax is due while the strategy persists.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/01/amazon_earnings_how_jeff_bezos_gets_investors_to_believe_in_him.html0 -
I suspect there's quite a lot of bigging things up to create some false tension.
But that really doesn't cut any ice when it's patently not true. McDonnell's speech was plodding and recycled EdM. Only someone with complete tribal loyalty or paid by the word would say otherwise.ReggieCide said:
I couldn't agree more. He knew he was preaching to the converted (or those pretending to be to maintain any semblance of unity) and played it for their applause which may as well have been auto-cued unlike his "speech". Corbynistas are desperate to be seen as "new" but I was unclear whether JS wanted us to be Greece or the Soviet Union.MikeK said:I'm sure Mr. Smithson is making threads up as he goes. Mc Donnell speech was hesitant, mediocre and banal. Michael White is just the type to say that the shadow chancellor was impressive, being such an unimpressive luke warm socialist himself.
Who was that awful woman that AN tried to interview afterwards. No wonder JS made such a point about the refusers coming back in to help. I didn't think when he said it that he was sincere (JS insincere, shurly not) but having seen that interview, I think he might well have been. Who knows? Labour truly is in the altogether.0 -
Well, let's hope the other 70% makes more sense than that announced. The 30% doesn't seem to have withstood much scrutiny by the pb hive mind...Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: One senior MP tellls me speech was only 30% of what Corbyn and McDonnell want to do
Omnishambles budget, anybody?0 -
It normally takes a day or two to dismantle these kind of speeches. This one was an exception. How do you properly dismantle a speech where nothing has been said. The whole Corynite approach seems to be "say nothing then those media bastards will have nothing to chew on". That woman "interviewed" afterwards by AN exemplifies the approach - we only answer questions that we want to be asked". That's politics I suppose.Richard_Nabavi said:McDonnell was absolutely pathetic on Today this morning. He has already back-tracked or U-turned on almost everything the Corbyn campaign won its mandate on. His record of supporting hate, violence and economic lunacy speaks for itself.
He is going to be as easy a foe for Osborne as many expected. The fact that he has just given a speech of empty platitudes doesn't alter that.0 -
@jameskirkup: Put it another way: are you willing to give up pumpkin spiced latte over Starbucks' tax arrangements? http://t.co/BF6dqeQjF30
-
Guardian live http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/28/labour-conference-john-mcdonnells-economy-speech-politics-live
In its response to John McDonnell’s speech, the Social Market Foundation says Labour has not avoided the trap set by George Osborne with his fiscal responsibility charter. Here’s an excerpt.
John McDonnell said he was avoiding the attempt by George Osborne to play political games with fiscal charters. He wasn’t falling into the trap apparently. Well, he didn’t tumble into it in this speech, because he cleverly skirted over whether his position is to run a current surplus or an overall surplus. It sounds like a technicality, but it makes £40billion worth of a difference. He’s postponed falling into the trap rather than avoided it: at some point he is going to have to decide where his vote lies in parliament.MarqueeMark said:
Well, let's hope the other 70% makes more sense than that announced. The 30% doesn't seem to have withstood much scrutiny by the pb hive mind...Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: One senior MP tellls me speech was only 30% of what Corbyn and McDonnell want to do
Omnishambles budget, anybody?0 -
No, that's the "new politics", right?ReggieCide said:That woman "interviewed" afterwards by AN exemplifies the approach - we only answer questions that we want to be asked". That's politics I suppose.
0 -
To abolish the 10% wear and tear allowance was in Osbo's budget in July.MattW said:Example of McDonnell being gormless:
Cuts to the billion pound tax breaks given to buy to let landlords for repairing their properties, whether they undertake the repairs or not.
The only basis available in future will already be on the basis of receipts.
First came deficit reduction, then this. Is McDonnell an Osborne mole?0 -
Someone should ask Vodafone if their inter-country transfer pricing is the same. For example, if someone makes a 10 minute call from Switzerland to the UK and Vodafone handles the call in both countries, is the charge Vodafone UK makes to Vodafone CH the same as if the call was made from UK to Switzerland.Plato_Says said:A spokesman for Vodafone said:
Quote It is disappointing that this has been raised again. There was no truth in the allegations in the past and there are none now. As we have made clear on numerous occasions, Vodafone has always paid its taxes and for the last financial year we paid around £360 million in direct taxes in the UK.
"It requires huge investment to build and maintain our network, which is relied upon by businesses and consumers up and down the country and we have invested heavily in the UK over the last few years, spending more than £1 billion on our network and services last year. As a result of that investment and the very competitive market, we make minimal profits (£41 million) in the UK. As the Government wants to promote investment in essential infrastructure like ours, the UK tax rules mean that reliefs for our investment are set against the profits we make. In addition the Government understands that we have to borrow huge sums of money to be able to invest for the long term, so they allow us to take the interest we pay on those borrowings off our profit too. Corporation tax is then paid on any balance – this is the same rule that applies to all UK companies large and small.”
Multinational companies are well known in these situations to charge more to the company where the tax rate is higher.
No one does it more than pharmaceutical companies.
All Starbucks companies in Europe pay a royalty to Starbucks Netherlands to "use" the Starbucks logo and similar marketing costs. The Starbucks logo etc. is owned by Starbucks Netherlands.
Why ? Because the Dutch government charges lower tax rates on such marketing income.0 -
I took him at his word and looked to see when Prudence was actually on.perdix said:
Motherhood and apple pie, socialist version. Warm words, no detail.volcanopete said:Superb performance by the Peoples Chancellor.John McDonnell gave a commitment to evidence-based policy,fair,progressive taxation and a balanced revenue budget,just as he did at the GLC.Prudence is back.
0 -
Yes - their P&L show very little profit yet their balance sheet shows that cash and short term investments have increased from $8b to $14b in the last 12 months.edmundintokyo said:
That doesn't seem to be true. Amazon genuinely don't make profits. See Yglesias:surbiton said:
They make "no" profits after clever transfer pricing. That is where a global agreement is needed . All countries are losers except ultimately, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, etc....MattW said:
Corporation tax is on profit.Barnesian said:
If Amazon was forced to pay a fair level of UK Corporation Tax, they would have to put up prices to maintain their current level of after tax profit. That would be great as it would allow UK companies including many independent booksellers to compete on a more level playing field.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour 'will make Google, Starbucks and Amazon pay fair tax share' http://t.co/62EqqT1Cns
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
Amazon invest rather than make profits, ergo no Corporation Tax is due while the strategy persists.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/01/amazon_earnings_how_jeff_bezos_gets_investors_to_believe_in_him.html
https://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=NASDAQ:AMZN&fstype=ii
It is odd that you can increase your liquid assets by $6b in a year while making no profit. I confess I don't understand it.0