politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If all goes to Dave’s plan British voters will be filling i

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Why is remain at the top of the ballot, "L" comes before "R" in the alphabet so far as I can recall.

Because it's the first option in the referendum question.

Yes, I realise that begs a further question.

I've just checked the AV ballot "Yes" was above "No" in that too.

I might do another thread on AV based on that.

Sunil J. Prasannan is calling for a total and complete shut-down of AV threads entering PB.com, until our Forum's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on!

You'll be delighted to know Sunday's thread is Star Trek themed and compares George Osborne to James T. Kirk.

Cool! Will there be a "Khan" involved?

No. I did do a Wrath of Khan thread last year. Was too subtle for most PBers.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/09/11/yes-we-khan-sadiq-khan-wins-the-london-mayoral-nomination-59-to-41/

"He tasks me! He tasks me and I shall have him! I'll chase him round the Moons of Newbury, round the Angus Maelstrom, and round Pendle's flames before I give him up!

"Prepare to alter course."

dr_spyn said:

1975 Referendum paper had Yes at top, then No.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-01-23/the-1975-european-referendum-in-pictures/

The smoke and mirrors on the renegotiated deal may be instructive this time round too:

"THE NEW DEAL

The better terms which Britain will enjoy if we stay in the Common Market were secured only after long and tough negotiations.

These started in April 1974 and did not end until March of this year.

On March 10 and 11 the Heads of Government met in Dublin and clinched the bargain. On March 18 the Prime Minister was able to make this announcements:

'I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved.'

What were the main objectives to which Mr. Wilson referred? The most important were FOOD and MONEY and JOBS.


FOOD

Britain had to ensure that shoppers could get secure supplies of food at fair prices.

As a result of these negotiations the Common Agricultural policy (known as CAP) now works more flexibly to the benefit of both housewives and farmers in Britain. The special arrangements made for sugar and beef are a good example.

At the same time many food prices in the rest of the world have shot up, and our food prices are now no higher because Britain is in the Market than if we were outside.

The Government also won a better deal on food imports from countries outside the Common Market, particularly for Commonwealth sugar and for New Zealand dairy products. These will continue to be on sale in our shops.

This is not the end of improvements in the Market's food policy. There will be further reviews. Britain, as a member, will be able to seek further changes to our advantage. And we shall be more sure of our supplies when food is scarce in the world.


MONEY AND JOBS

Under the previous terms, Britain's contribution to the Common Market budget imposed too heavy a burden on us. The new terms ensure that Britain will pay a fairer share. We now stand, under the Dublin agreement, to get back from Market funds up to £125 million a year.

There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic & Monetary Union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed.

Britain will not have to put VAT on necessities like food.

We have also maintained our freedom to pursue our own policies on taxation and on industry, and to develop Scotland and Wales and the Regions where unemployment is high."

rcs1000 said:

@MaxPB:

I've been thinking about problems with your operating margin idea. There are two possible isses:

1. Genuinely cross border transactions: If I sign up as an Amazon Web Services customer, where my contract is with Amazon Inc (and the server I'm renting is in the US), does that count as part of UK sales, or do we just add up the consolidated sales of UK limited companies as part of the Amazon group?

2. Companies where there are lots of different margin profiles (i.e. conglomerates). If I have a widget distribution business in the US earning me margins on 2% on massive volumes, and I have a software business in the UK with margins of 25%, leading to an overall group margin of 3%, then I'll just pay tax at 3% on my UK software business. It will encourage companies to bulk up low margin businesses to make it hard to catch them.

3. Companies where the same product is sold internationally but costs are determined locally. ie Netflix, Spotify. Should they pay a higher rate of tax in the UK even though their costs in licensing deals are higher here leading to lower profits, or should they not bother trying to expand in higher-margin countries such as India and China? Or will they just have several companies, far enough detached from each other to avoid being caught in the tax trap?

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

O/T:

Averages of the 7 Swedish opinion polls conducted so far this year:

Socialists 23.9%
Moderate 23.1%
Sweden Democrats 21.5%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_general_election,_2018#Poll_results

Unless the Swedish Democrats get 30%+ I don't think anyone else will dance.

The Swedish police continue to cause controversy:

"'Who knows what horrors he has been through?' Swedish police chief sparks anger by sympathising with Somali boy, 15, 'who stabbed refugee worker to death'"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3419094/Who-knows-horrors-Police-chief-sparks-anger-sympathising-Somali-boy-stabbed-refugee-worker.html

LewisDuckworth said:

Why hasn't the form got Leave before Remain? Did the Electoral Reform bunch decide on this?

I'm not sure, but the Yes was on top of the No in the 1975 vote.

Welcome or is it hello again?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@JohnRentoul · 28m28 minutes ago
Young @MattChorley's homework will be marked on 20 Feb (Times Red Box email)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZu4vjEXEAI_oGV.png

I half agree with Matt Chorley. I think the deal is essentially done (indeed, a couple of EU figures have more or less said as much). But for maximum impact, I think we'll get one more bit of panto at the February meeting and a "grand" bargain struck at the April meeting, just in time for the local election cycle.

I think there could be a rabbit. It may well be linked to Gove's draft British Bill of Rights.

I think it will be a guarantee that we can continue to have red post boxes, or something equally significant.

I was hoping that we can continue to drive on the left.

It'll be the British Sausage.

I reckon it'll be that MPs will move out to the Euro Parliament while the refurb works in Westminister are going on. So that means 3 weeks a month in Strasbourg, and hot-footing it to Brussels for the final week while the MEPs do the opposite journey

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

MaxPB said:

HurstLlama said:

Sounds good, Mr. Max, but would straightforward income tax be even fairer, easier to collect and very difficult to fiddle?

If memory serves, until 1964 companies were treated as individuals and taxed on income (albeit with squillions of exemptions and loopholes). Then the Wilson government introduced an additional "Profits Tax" and that has since morphed into what we now know as Corporation Tax. Perhaps it is time to go back to what corporations and companies were originally set up for - to be treated as individuals in law.

If a company wants to do business in the UK then it wants to take advantage of the physical and legal infrastructure of the UK and so can damn well cough up a percentage of its earnings to pay for those things. A company income tax, set at a suitable level with no exemptions or allowances, would knock all fiddles on the head, Starbucks, Google, Amazon, Apple et al would all be paying their share.

Oh, I'd also make it an offence punishable by a minimum five year term of imprisonment for any CEO and CFO whose company was found guilty of not paying due taxes and the whole board of directors (including non-executives) would be disqualified for life from any UK directorship or position of public office.

Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.

No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.

Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.

Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, Caesar, at Dyrrachium.

....

Darmok and Jalad... at Tanagra
Temba, his arms wide!
Jalad at Tanagra. Uzani, his army. Shaka, when the walls fell.

MyBurningEars said:

HurstLlama said:

MaxPB said:

HurstLlama said:

Sounds good, Mr. Max, but would straightforward income tax be even fairer, easier to collect and very difficult to fiddle?

If memory serves, until 1964 companies were treated as individuals and taxed on income (albeit with squillions of exemptions and loopholes). Then the Wilson government introduced an additional "Profits Tax" and that has since morphed into what we now know as Corporation Tax. Perhaps it is time to go back to what corporations and companies were originally set up for - to be treated as individuals in law.

If a company wants to do business in the UK then it wants to take advantage of the physical and legal infrastructure of the UK and so can damn well cough up a percentage of its earnings to pay for those things. A company income tax, set at a suitable level with no exemptions or allowances, would knock all fiddles on the head, Starbucks, Google, Amazon, Apple et al would all be paying their share.

Oh, I'd also make it an offence punishable by a minimum five year term of imprisonment for any CEO and CFO whose company was found guilty of not paying due taxes and the whole board of directors (including non-executives) would be disqualified for life from any UK directorship or position of public office.

Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.

No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.

From memory, the old-style corporate income tax allowed (as personal income tax has always done) for subtraction of costs. When dealing with companies that operate in multiple countries, it can be difficult to pin down quite where the costs are taking place, or how much they really are. (In fact as rcs notes it can also be difficult to identify quite where the sales are taking place too!)

Doesn't matter, Mr. Ears, is the company doing business in the UK? If so then n% of its income goes to HMG.

For example if a company registered in Luxembourg for tax purposes issues invoices worth £1,000 to its UK customers then, say, 5% of that £1,000 goes to HMG in tax. If a company registered in Nottingham issues £1,000 of invoices then they are liable for the same 5%. As they say, a level playing field.

HurstLlama said:

MyBurningEars said:

HurstLlama said:

MaxPB said:

HurstLlama said:

Sounds good, Mr. Max, but would straightforward income tax be even fairer, easier to collect and very difficult to fiddle?

[...]

If a company wants to do business in the UK then it wants to take advantage of the physical and legal infrastructure of the UK and so can damn well cough up a percentage of its earnings to pay for those things. A company income tax, set at a suitable level with no exemptions or allowances, would knock all fiddles on the head, Starbucks, Google, Amazon, Apple et al would all be paying their share.

Oh, I'd also make it an offence punishable by a minimum five year term of imprisonment for any CEO and CFO whose company was found guilty of not paying due taxes and the whole board of directors (including non-executives) would be disqualified for life from any UK directorship or position of public office.

Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.

No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.

From memory, the old-style corporate income tax allowed (as personal income tax has always done) for subtraction of costs. When dealing with companies that operate in multiple countries, it can be difficult to pin down quite where the costs are taking place, or how much they really are. (In fact as rcs notes it can also be difficult to identify quite where the sales are taking place too!)

Doesn't matter, Mr. Ears, is the company doing business in the UK? If so then n% of its income goes to HMG.

For example if a company registered in Luxembourg for tax purposes issues invoices worth £1,000 to its UK customers then, say, 5% of that £1,000 goes to HMG in tax. If a company registered in Nottingham issues £1,000 of invoices then they are liable for the same 5%. As they say, a level playing field.

So that's where turnover is generated? What if Company A in the UK invoices Company B in France for goods?

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

MaxPB said:

Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.

No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.

Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.

Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.

The point is that profits are calculated after costs.

When Google (UK) Ltd buy electricity from Southern Electric that's all well and good and simple.

Complications arise when Google (UK) Ltd buys things from Google Inc. For example, it is highly likely that Google will have a single SAP system that is administered out of the US. It is right that Google Inc should charge Google (UK) Ltd for the use of that system - because if it bought its own SAP system, and hired its own support, etc, it would cost more. However, it is how these transactions are charged (i.e. how costs are allocated internally) that allows companies to evade tax.

HMRC needs to be beefed up so it is able to look through the books of multinationals and identify charges which it believes are at non-market rates. But, even at that point the multinational will have hundred page dossier on what it thinks the market price is. Taking all these court is difficult and expensive, and there is genuine scope for disagreement.

I wish there was a simple solution. But the truth is that we need to increase enforcement, and make the penalties much more serious for pricing things at non-market rates. That will improve things somewhat, but multinationals will be continually working to reduce tax rates and take full advantage of whatever loopholes we've created.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

O/T:

Averages of the 7 Swedish opinion polls conducted so far this year:

Socialists 23.9%
Moderate 23.1%
Sweden Democrats 21.5%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_general_election,_2018#Poll_results

Unless the Swedish Democrats get 30%+ I don't think anyone else will dance.

The Swedish police continue to cause controversy:

"'Who knows what horrors he has been through?' Swedish police chief sparks anger by sympathising with Somali boy, 15, 'who stabbed refugee worker to death'"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3419094/Who-knows-horrors-Police-chief-sparks-anger-sympathising-Somali-boy-stabbed-refugee-worker.html

The Swedish police seem to be politicised to a remarkable degree.

Have you met many senior British coppers recently, Mr. F?

rcs1000 said:

@MaxPB:

I've been thinking about problems with your operating margin idea. There are two possible isses:

1. Genuinely cross border transactions: If I sign up as an Amazon Web Services customer, where my contract is with Amazon Inc (and the server I'm renting is in the US), does that count as part of UK sales, or do we just add up the consolidated sales of UK limited companies as part of the Amazon group?

2. Companies where there are lots of different margin profiles (i.e. conglomerates). If I have a widget distribution business in the US earning me margins on 2% on massive volumes, and I have a software business in the UK with margins of 25%, leading to an overall group margin of 3%, then I'll just pay tax at 3% on my UK software business. It will encourage companies to bulk up low margin businesses to make it hard to catch them.

The revenue would be booked from a UK IP address so it would be classed as UK revenue.

Then they are creating employment and destroying their own business profile, it's their decision to do that. Honestly if companies are petty enough to look into anything like this then we will just end up moving to a turnover tax which as I said is not a good idea.

In the same way that landlords didn't get their house in order for over 20 years and now the government is stepping in to do it for them, corporations are heading for the same fate. Eventually governments are just going to use the nuclear option and implement turnover taxes which will be impossible to avoid.

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

@MaxPB:

I've been thinking about problems with your operating margin idea. There are two possible isses:

1. Genuinely cross border transactions: If I sign up as an Amazon Web Services customer, where my contract is with Amazon Inc (and the server I'm renting is in the US), does that count as part of UK sales, or do we just add up the consolidated sales of UK limited companies as part of the Amazon group?

2. Companies where there are lots of different margin profiles (i.e. conglomerates). If I have a widget distribution business in the US earning me margins on 2% on massive volumes, and I have a software business in the UK with margins of 25%, leading to an overall group margin of 3%, then I'll just pay tax at 3% on my UK software business. It will encourage companies to bulk up low margin businesses to make it hard to catch them.

The revenue would be booked from a UK IP address so it would be classed as UK revenue.

Then they are creating employment and destroying their own business profile, it's their decision to do that. Honestly if companies are petty enough to look into anything like this then we will just end up moving to a turnover tax which as I said is not a good idea.

In the same way that landlords didn't get their house in order for over 20 years and now the government is stepping in to do it for them, corporations are heading for the same fate. Eventually governments are just going to use the nuclear option and implement turnover taxes which will be impossible to avoid.

How do you enforce on companies without a UK presence?

A comment about Kinnock on the Guardian website:

"Kinnock had principles once. He was once for the 99%. He was once the future. He became like all the rest with his snout in the trough. He can't understand the revolution Corbyn fronts. It's a people's revolution. It will sweep "Lord" Kinnock and his Blairite colleagues aside. The future is bright. Unleash the ideas!"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/jan/27/pmqs-cameron-corbyn-google-tax-hilton-as-above-the-law-says-former-cameron-aide-steve-hilton-politics-live

HurstLlama said:

Doesn't matter, Mr. Ears, is the company doing business in the UK? If so then n% of its income goes to HMG.

For example if a company registered in Luxembourg for tax purposes issues invoices worth £1,000 to its UK customers then, say, 5% of that £1,000 goes to HMG in tax. If a company registered in Nottingham issues £1,000 of invoices then they are liable for the same 5%. As they say, a level playing field.

In that case it sounds like you are suggesting a tax based on turnover rather than income? With no allowances for costs whatsoever, let alone any way of carrying losses? There are all kinds of problems with that, as rcs will explain to you. One hint: margins.

(As a chap who operates a very small business myself, I still manage to export thousands of pounds annually to the USA, China, Russia, India, various spots around continental Europe, Africa and the Middle East... the day they all start taxing me with different rates and different paperwork is the day I go back to working for the public sector. Let alone the other complications, like the US or Swedish clients who pay me via their British bank accounts. But this isn't a killer flaw.)

HurstLlama said:

MaxPB said:

HurstLlama said:

Sounds good, Mr. Max, but would straightforward income tax be even fairer, easier to collect and very difficult to fiddle?

If memory serves, until 1964 companies were treated as individuals and taxed on income (albeit with squillions of exemptions and loopholes). Then the Wilson government introduced an additional "Profits Tax" and that has since morphed into what we now know as Corporation Tax. Perhaps it is time to go back to what corporations and companies were originally set up for - to be treated as individuals in law.

If a company wants to do business in the UK then it wants to take advantage of the physical and legal infrastructure of the UK and so can damn well cough up a percentage of its earnings to pay for those things. A company income tax, set at a suitable level with no exemptions or allowances, would knock all fiddles on the head, Starbucks, Google, Amazon, Apple et al would all be paying their share.

Oh, I'd also make it an offence punishable by a minimum five year term of imprisonment for any CEO and CFO whose company was found guilty of not paying due taxes and the whole board of directors (including non-executives) would be disqualified for life from any UK directorship or position of public office.

Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.

No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.

But then you are getting into trusting companies to declare the correct amount of income to HMRC.

Someone told me that Apple declared UK profits of £50m last year on which they paid just over £10m in tax after a few deductions. Does anyone really believe that Apple made just £50m from their vast UK operations when their global operating profit for the same tax year was something like $51bn.

No, the only way to make it work is to assume that corporations are cheating, lying scum and work from there. They haven't done very much to challenge that opinion.

Pulpstar said:

blackburn63 said:

The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.

OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s

We've got all our betting readies tied up on Donald Trump I'm afraid.

Replied btw!

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

MaxPB said:

Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.

No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.

Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.

Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.

The point is that profits are calculated after costs.

When Google (UK) Ltd buy electricity from Southern Electric that's all well and good and simple.

Complications arise when Google (UK) Ltd buys things from Google Inc. For example, it is highly likely that Google will have a single SAP system that is administered out of the US. It is right that Google Inc should charge Google (UK) Ltd for the use of that system - because if it bought its own SAP system, and hired its own support, etc, it would cost more. However, it is how these transactions are charged (i.e. how costs are allocated internally) that allows companies to evade tax.

HMRC needs to be beefed up so it is able to look through the books of multinationals and identify charges which it believes are at non-market rates. But, even at that point the multinational will have hundred page dossier on what it thinks the market price is. Taking all these court is difficult and expensive, and there is genuine scope for disagreement.

I wish there was a simple solution. But the truth is that we need to increase enforcement, and make the penalties much more serious for pricing things at non-market rates. That will improve things somewhat, but multinationals will be continually working to reduce tax rates and take full advantage of whatever loopholes we've created.

You keep talking about profits, Mr. Robert. I am talking about taxing income not taxing profits.

I don't see the difference? If you aren't classing income as either revenue or profit I don't understand the concept you are getting at.

HurstLlama said:

You keep talking about profits, Mr. Robert. I am talking about taxing income not taxing profits.

I think the cross-purposes here are that you are using the word "income" to mean "turnover", whereas as a technical term it actually means something rather closer to the "profits" you are trying to avoid. (Note that UK income tax for individuals has always allowed deductions for costs for a person running their own business, and indeed for them to be able to carry forward losses. It's not that due to some corporate tomfoolery, "income" acquires a brand new definition when talking about companies.)

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

@MaxPB:

I've been thinking about problems with your operating margin idea. There are two possible isses:

1. Genuinely cross border transactions: If I sign up as an Amazon Web Services customer, where my contract is with Amazon Inc (and the server I'm renting is in the US), does that count as part of UK sales, or do we just add up the consolidated sales of UK limited companies as part of the Amazon group?

2. Companies where there are lots of different margin profiles (i.e. conglomerates). If I have a widget distribution business in the US earning me margins on 2% on massive volumes, and I have a software business in the UK with margins of 25%, leading to an overall group margin of 3%, then I'll just pay tax at 3% on my UK software business. It will encourage companies to bulk up low margin businesses to make it hard to catch them.

The revenue would be booked from a UK IP address so it would be classed as UK revenue.

Then they are creating employment and destroying their own business profile, it's their decision to do that. Honestly if companies are petty enough to look into anything like this then we will just end up moving to a turnover tax which as I said is not a good idea.

In the same way that landlords didn't get their house in order for over 20 years and now the government is stepping in to do it for them, corporations are heading for the same fate. Eventually governments are just going to use the nuclear option and implement turnover taxes which will be impossible to avoid.

How do you enforce on companies without a UK presence?

Bar them from conducting business in the UK and make them go through a UK intermediary that can be taxed. There has to be a UK based merchant who will conduct the transaction, that is where the money needs to be taxed if they have no UK presence. Take the 25% from there, if they cease to do business in the UK because they don't get any allowances for their expenses then so be it. We are a huge market, it is time to take advantage of that status.

You need to be careful there. If you prevent UK individuals from entering into contractual arrangements with US domiciled firms, you will not be eligible for Most Favored Nation status.

blackburn63 said:

The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.

OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s

I don't think Remain will win (though, unlike you, I hope it does) but I think Leave's price will ease further when the agreement is announced and Cameron struts his stuff and Remain opens up a lead. Then I think it will come back towards Leave.

MaxPB said:

<

But then you are getting into trusting companies to declare the correct amount of income to HMRC.

Someone told me that Apple declared UK profits of £50m last year on which they paid just over £10m in tax after a few deductions. Does anyone really believe that Apple made just £50m from their vast UK operations when their global operating profit for the same tax year was something like $51bn.

No, the only way to make it work is to assume that corporations are cheating, lying scum and work from there. They haven't done very much to challenge that opinion.

I should have thought that it is very easy to track a company's income - it has to arrive in a bank account, it also has to be reported on the company's balance sheet. Reconciling one against the other is not that hard. For overseas companies doing business in the UK nearly all payments will move through a UK bank account to which HMRC have access. Aggregating such payments would not be hard and someone on the fiddle will stand out like a turd on a billiard table. Then the criminal law can come out to play.

AndyJS said:

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

O/T:

Averages of the 7 Swedish opinion polls conducted so far this year:

Socialists 23.9%
Moderate 23.1%
Sweden Democrats 21.5%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_general_election,_2018#Poll_results

Unless the Swedish Democrats get 30%+ I don't think anyone else will dance.

The Swedish police continue to cause controversy:

"'Who knows what horrors he has been through?' Swedish police chief sparks anger by sympathising with Somali boy, 15, 'who stabbed refugee worker to death'"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3419094/Who-knows-horrors-Police-chief-sparks-anger-sympathising-Somali-boy-stabbed-refugee-worker.html

It seems the Swedish police have being corbynised.

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

MaxPB said:

Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.

No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.

Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.

Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.

The point is that profits are calculated after costs.

When Google (UK) Ltd buy electricity from Southern Electric that's all well and good and simple.

Complications arise when Google (UK) Ltd buys things from Google Inc. For example, it is highly likely that Google will have a single SAP system that is administered out of the US. It is right that Google Inc should charge Google (UK) Ltd for the use of that system - because if it bought its own SAP system, and hired its own support, etc, it would cost more. However, it is how these transactions are charged (i.e. how costs are allocated internally) that allows companies to evade

You keep talking about profits, Mr. Robert. I am talking about taxing income not taxing profits.

Income is revenue minus costs.

If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.

A turnover or sales tax is harder for companies to dodge via transfer pricing. I suspect that the Inland Revenue gets more out of Apple in VAT than in Corporation by orders of magnitude.

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

Income is revenue minus costs.

If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.

Income is income. Income minus costs is profit. Or have I got that wrong?

It's one of those shitty words with multiple definitions.

Tissue_Price said:

Tissue_Price said:

blackburn63 said:

The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.

OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s

If it's a toss of a coin then 2/1 is naturally value. But it isn't becoming that scenario; all the mood music is that Cameron has basically got his deal (insipid though it may be) and we've been set up for a referendum in June which wouldn't be happening if they didn't think it was [relatively easily] winnable.

Meanwhile the Leave campaigns(!) are largely incoherent.

Further to that, if we don't now get a June 23 referendum I'd be reversing out of that opinion fairly sharpish :-)

That's a very plausible scenario for a Remain win. My gut feeling is that it relies on choreography over too long a period (even 144 days is a long time). There's a migration crisis. The EU is not liked. And Leave may get a leader than can swing Conservative supporters away from Dave. So much depends on how Con voters break. Cameron's recommendation will count for a lot, but whether it's enough, dunno.

foxinsoxuk said:

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

MaxPB said:

Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.

No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.

Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.

Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.

The point is that profits are calculated after costs.

When Google (UK) Ltd buy electricity from Southern Electric that's all well and good and simple.

Complications arise when Google (UK) Ltd buys things from Google Inc. For example, it is highly likely that Google will have a single SAP system that is administered out of the US. It is right that Google Inc should charge Google (UK) Ltd for the use of that system - because if it bought its own SAP system, and hired its own support, etc, it would cost more. However, it is how these transactions are charged (i.e. how costs are allocated internally) that allows companies to evade

You keep talking about profits, Mr. Robert. I am talking about taxing income not taxing profits.

Income is revenue minus costs.

If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.

A turnover or sales tax is harder for companies to dodge via transfer pricing. I suspect that the Inland Revenue gets more out of Apple in VAT than in Corporation by orders of magnitude.

For sure, but VAT is a consumer tax, we pay it and Apple just acts as the collection agency.

@CourtNewsUK ·
Juror asks ex Dragon Doug Richard: 'If this was your daughter would you blame the man and think what he did was wrong?'

If I were the defence lawyer, I'd regard this development as sub-optimal.

MaxPB said:

For sure, but VAT is a consumer tax, we pay it and Apple just acts as the collection agency.

But tax incidence suggests that Apple then charge a lower [yet still profit-maximising] price because they take into account the fact that the consumer is paying VAT.

MaxPB said:

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

Income is revenue minus costs.

If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.

Income is income. Income minus costs is profit. Or have I got that wrong?

Income is turnover, gross profit is turnover less cost of sales, operating profit is gross profit minus operating costs. My guess is that you would want to levy your tax on the gross profit, but even that can be gamed by overcharging and transfer pricing.

Gross profit would not get around the Starbucks problem, but would work for Google and Apple

Listening to the report on the BBC re the spare room subsidy/bedroom tax regarding grandparents with a disabled grandchild no one commented that the grandparents are paid the subsidy under a discretionary fund by their local authority. Apparently the grandfather admits this but is concerned it may be withdrawn by future council cuts. Surely if it legislated for it cannot be cut. Also it shows how journalists either don't know the full circumstances or their report fits a particular political narrative.

Pulpstar said:

foxinsoxuk said:

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

MaxPB said:

Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.

No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.

Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.

Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.

The point is that profits are calculated after costs.

When Google (UK) Ltd buy electricity from Southern Electric that's all well and good and simple.

Complications arise when Google (UK) Ltd buys things from Google Inc. For example, it is highly likely that Google will have a single SAP system that is administered out of the US. It is right that Google Inc should charge Google (UK) Ltd for the use of that system - because if it bought its own SAP system, and hired its own support, etc, it would cost more. However, it is how these transactions are charged (i.e. how costs are allocated internally) that allows companies to evade

You keep talking about profits, Mr. Robert. I am talking about taxing income not taxing profits.

Income is revenue minus costs.

If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.

A turnover or sales tax is harder for companies to dodge via transfer pricing. I suspect that the Inland Revenue gets more out of Apple in VAT than in Corporation by orders of magnitude.

Does HMRC get ANYTHING out of Apple by VAT ?

VAT is an entirely balance sheet item. Apple's customer's OTOH

I would guess that the App Store sales and Apple Music subscriptions were subject to UK VAT. Can anyone definitely confirm this?

Most of their phones are of course sold subsidised by the networks, and other hardware sales will have the VAT paid by the retailer.

Juror. As @CourtNewsUK explains:

@CourtNewsUK · 16m16 minutes ago
Jurors can send a note to a judge asking questions of the defendant

MaxPB said:

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

Income is revenue minus costs.

If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.

Income is income. Income minus costs is profit. Or have I got that wrong?

Income is turnover, gross profit is turnover less cost of sales, operating profit is gross profit minus operating costs. My guess is that you would want to levy your tax on the gross profit, but even that can be gamed by overcharging and transfer pricing.

No, I want to levy my tax on income. Not sure why this is proving such a difficult idea to get across.

A company is a legal construct that was brought about to enable a group to function as an individual in terms of contracts etc.. Just treat companies doing business in the UK as though they were individuals resident in the UK but without any taxable deductions and, probably, at a lower rate of income tax.

AlastairMeeks said:

@CourtNewsUK ·
Juror asks ex Dragon Doug Richard: 'If this was your daughter would you blame the man and think what he did was wrong?'

If I were the defence lawyer, I'd regard this development as sub-optimal.

This is one of those cases where, no matter how much he claims he was stitched up and/or lied to, he's going to find it difficult to persuade the jury of his innocence, given that he was in his mid 50s and she was 13.

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

Income is revenue minus costs.

If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.

Income is income. Income minus costs is profit. Or have I got that wrong?

Income is turnover, gross profit is turnover less cost of sales, operating profit is gross profit minus operating costs. My guess is that you would want to levy your tax on the gross profit, but even that can be gamed by overcharging and transfer pricing.

Gross profit would not get around the Starbucks problem, but would work for Google and Apple

NYC has an off-the-top 1% tax on revenue, as do a few other US cities. For corporations where revenue is clearly generated in the UK, that sort of tax might work - or like the withholding tax, make it the greater of that or normal corporation tax so that there is a minimum tax take of x% of revenues.

Edit: this applicable only to multinational corporations not domiciled in the UK, so that marginal or temporarily loss-making UK corporations are not forced out of business.

@SeanT

malcolmg said:

SeanT said:

eek said:

NickPalmer said:

SeanT said:

Young stepmother moves into big old Cornish House with ancient Cornish family. Stepson - eight years old, clever, soulful, beautiful - starts acting strangely, predicting things. Then he predicts her death. By Christmas,

The clock is ticking. the young stepmum urgently needs to discover, is he genuinely clairvoyant, or is he somehow troubled by the dark mysteries surrounding his mother's death, two years before?

DARK CHRISTMAS
CHRISTMAS IS COMING (Game of Thrones fans will know what you mean)
or, combined...
DARK CHRISTMAS IS COMING

I can predict the reply to those suggestions - anything with Christmas in only sells in November / December?

A Death Foretold?

Yep. You can allude to Xmas but saying it is commercial death.

Chronicle of a Death Foretold is a famous book

Cancel Santa

Can't believe I missed this - I love thinking up titles for things. (tee hee @ 'Cancel Santa')

The advent cullendar? The badvent calendar? (joking)

10 more sleeps? (half joking - something along these lines might work as a strapline?)

Silent Night? (because she's dead innit)

SILENT NIGHT

she's got 10 more sleeps...

There we go. A bit 'Goosebumps' for your purposes perhaps!

OT from BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35419500

How utterly pathetic of the also highly privileged Rachel Cohen to force her perverted views on people in this way.

And yes, I do view her world view as a perversion of reality.

Schools should all celebrate excellence and encourage their students to strive for the best. Lewis is an internationally acclaimed actor - what has Cohen ever done for the world?

blackburn63 said:

Wanderer said:

blackburn63 said:

The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.

OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s

I don't think Remain will win (though, unlike you, I hope it does) but I think Leave's price will ease further when the agreement is announced and Cameron struts his stuff and Remain opens up a lead. Then I think it will come back towards Leave.

Interesting, I'm curious to see the tory eurosceptics reaction to Cameron's negotiations, he's bullied the cabinet into submission but backbenchers might not be so obedient. The assumption on here that whichever way Cameron goes is the winner (we all know which way he's going) is based on him being popular outside of the conservative party. He's not.

I'm trying to be objective, in such a close contest I'll always back the 2/1 chance

Oh dear bless them, he's bullied them into submission? How sad you are.

TGOHF said:

But if Apple didn't make great products we might spend our money on holidays in France not on shiny electronic gadgets.

Apple don't make great products. They just con people they do, and then make them pay more for the 'joy' of being imprisoned in a walled garden. A stylish garden, yes. A garden where you can hang out with similar unfortunates, yes. But a walled garden nonetheless.

It's genius.

I quite like the fact the new iPad Pro has a stylus (pencil), given what Jobs thought of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YY3MSaUqMg

JosiasJessop said:

TGOHF said:

But if Apple didn't make great products we might spend our money on holidays in France not on shiny electronic gadgets.

Apple don't make great products. They just con people they do, and then make them pay more for the 'joy' of being imprisoned in a walled garden. A stylish garden, yes. A garden where you can hang out with similar unfortunates, yes. But a walled garden nonetheless.

It's genius.

I quite like the fact the new iPad Pro has a stylus (pencil), given what Jobs thought of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YY3MSaUqMg

Apple sell design and image.

MTimT said:

JosiasJessop said:

TGOHF said:

But if Apple didn't make great products we might spend our money on holidays in France not on shiny electronic gadgets.

Apple don't make great products. They just con people they do, and then make them pay more for the 'joy' of being imprisoned in a walled garden. A stylish garden, yes. A garden where you can hang out with similar unfortunates, yes. But a walled garden nonetheless.

It's genius.

I quite like the fact the new iPad Pro has a stylus (pencil), given what Jobs thought of them.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YY3MSaUqMg

Apple sell design and image.

With those jeans...?

SeanT said:

blackburn63 said:

The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.

OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s

LEAVE has a very significant chance of winning. From a Paris-style terrorist incident to a migrant rape spree to a Calais invasion to a bomb in a school to some euro cataclysm, virtually all the possible black swans favour LEAVE, and they are already nudging REMAIN close in the polls.

I'd give LEAVE a 40-45% chance of winning, as of now. If Cameron wasn't leading REMAIN I'd make LEAVE favourite.

It's indyref all over again. Complacent presumption that the status quo will triumph easily.

Which it did.

MaxPB said:

HurstLlama said:

MaxPB said:

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

Income is revenue minus costs.

If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.

Income is income. Income minus costs is profit. Or have I got that wrong?

Income is turnover, gross profit is turnover less cost of sales, operating profit is gross profit minus operating costs. My guess is that you would want to levy your tax on the gross profit, but even that can be gamed by overcharging and transfer pricing.

No, I want to levy my tax on income. Not sure why this is proving such a difficult idea to get across.

A company is a legal construct that was brought about to enable a group to function as an individual in terms of contracts etc.. Just treat companies doing business in the UK as though they were individuals resident in the UK but without any taxable deductions and, probably, at a lower rate of income tax.

That's a turnover tax. It will put a lot of legitimate low margin companies out of business.

It works in other locations, e.g. NYC. And it could be applied only to non-domiciled international corporations, to protect domestic and low margin corporations.

MaxPB said:

HurstLlama said:

MaxPB said:

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

Income is revenue minus costs.

If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.

Income is income. Income minus costs is profit. Or have I got that wrong?

Income is turnover, gross profit is turnover less cost of sales, operating profit is gross profit minus operating costs. My guess is that you would want to levy your tax on the gross profit, but even that can be gamed by overcharging and transfer pricing.

No, I want to levy my tax on income. Not sure why this is proving such a difficult idea to get across.

A company is a legal construct that was brought about to enable a group to function as an individual in terms of contracts etc.. Just treat companies doing business in the UK as though they were individuals resident in the UK but without any taxable deductions and, probably, at a lower rate of income tax.

That's a turnover tax. It will put a lot of legitimate low margin companies out of business.

No it won't. It might put some companies with unsustainable business models out of business. Companies that currently pay corporation tax should barely notice a difference, except a reduction in the costs involved in compliance. Companies that do not currently pay corporation tax or which will notice a big increase in their tax bill are either unsustainable or currently taking the piss.

Just a reminder, this is not a new idea it is in fact how businesses used to be taxed except that I suggest the exemptions and chargeable expenses are removed. If companies could cope with an income tax before 1964 there is no reason why they could not now. The biggts losers will be the accountants, oh, and any thieving buggers who try and avoid paying their company's dues.