Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » William Hill say nobody’s bet on Osbo since the Google tax
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » William Hill say nobody’s bet on Osbo since the Google tax row broke out
We don’t know how many bets on Osborne that they’d normally expect in the same period so it’s quite hard to assess the William Hill statement.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
He who goes in the favourite to a Tory leadership election emerges a cardinal. And is Osborne is not even a convincing favourite.
Totally unfit to be PM...
Odd choice for a thread then....
The average staff at a Will Hills have no idea on political bets either.
Besides all the political gamblers are balls deep into the GOP nominations.
https://twitter.com/hopenothate/status/693426906193084416
If we leave, we leave and should reap the claimed benefits from leaving. That means reducing immigration and reducing the number of migrants here, freeing jobs for Brits, reducing the benefits bill, reducing the housing pressures, etc, etc..
If Leave are proposing a situation where we continue to make the exact same exceptions as remaining in the EU required, then Leave is offering a false prospectus.
Marriage is one of the biggest methods of forcing migration on the country. If Leave is to be believed and we need to curb immigration then marriages should be the first area to be clamped down on.
It offers a wide opening range of political attacks that is very natural Labour territory at a time that revenue is needed to close the deficit.
Osborne has not done his homework on the economy and he hopes no one notices or no one cares.
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/01/13/full-simulation-of-gop-nomination-rules/
"Under GOP rules, 30% before Iowa/New Hampshire implies a delegate majority: Simulating the “proportional” rules"
Sam Wang @SamWangPhD
Nearly all GOP primary states disproportionately reward the first-place finisher.
Even those states that say they are "proportional."
NH rules: if vote=Trump 30%, Rubio 14%, Kasich 13%, Cruz 11%, Christie 9%
delegate outcome:
Trump 12, Rubio 3, Kasich 3, Cruz 2, Christie 0.
The Finance Bill 2016 contains a whole raft of new measures, not to mention the fact that HMRC have repeatedly been recording record low tax gaps as a percentage at a time when HMRC's headcount has been slashed dramatically. (It was once as high as 90k, now it's sub 57k if I remember correctly.)
There is no way this will stick long term.
I think someone has been reading this site
The interesting thing is, like Iraq, Afghanistan, nobody really knows why they are there.
Leaving Dictators' in place, is the lesser of two evils in my view.
I see no comparison with Gordon Brown. Osborne has been clearing up Browns mess. He is officially the effective deputy PM. He was Cameron's campaign manager he is not Cameron's opponent as Brown was Blair's opponent. He has been supporting Cameron and govt policy not trying to run his own policy and undermine the PM like Brown and just take a look at say Lawson who's shadow Deutschemark/ERM policy and desire to get in the ERM was totally contrary to what Thatcher wanted.
Anyone who thinks that the chancellor who has to strictly control and ration out spending is not the most difficult job in government is delusional. The main grip about Osborne as far as I can see is that he does not look like some matinee idol.
Seth MeyersVerified account @sethmeyers 2h2 hours ago
I polled Iowans for 3 hours and the result was 3 Hillary, 3 Trump, 1 Rubio and 200 hang ups https://youtu.be/-jILUZDtmVs
The way those things work is currently working against it, but the kind of anti-avoidance measures that are being talked up at the moment won't resolve the issue. The more radical "tax sales not profits" idea that Lord Lawson is pushing for would actually address this, but whether it is politically viable (it has some economic disadvantages and it's not really something that the UK can unilaterally impose so political viability means finding agreement with other countries, and I can't see why big net exporters would be very keen on the idea) is a different issue.
Basically if you want Irish exporters to pay tax on their "profits" in the UK you need to rip up the whole system of international tax treaties and start over again. Would involve major changes to the EU as well, I would imagine. Moreover. you'd have no right to complain when a stereotypically British company tells you that, since production here is a major cost in the UK but most of its revenue comes from exports, that in UK-only terms it's making a loss so won't be paying any corporation tax (but instead will be paying it in the countries it exports to but has no production centres, therefore is insanely profitable). Is that the way you want stuff to work?
Anyone who thinks there is an easy answer to this whole issue is missing something quite fundamental. And if it were so easy, why wouldn't Osborne (or Brown, for goodness sake, in fact any Chancellor since the 1960s) have "fixed" it all already?
* Yes, there is such a thing as Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich, but that's not the heart of the issue with Google.
The first impression they have about Corbyn is that he is a bad impersonator of a mediocre schoolteacher who cannot dress himself
The first impression they have about Osborne is that he is an awkward blinking posho who doesn't know when to smile at the humans
Google/terrorist sympathiser is secondary, it's like worrying about any particular policy Ed Miliband had, rather than the impression he made
Who allowed the deficit to rise who ran up the debt who failed to collect the tax for 13 years!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-leads-international-efforts-to-clampdown-on-tax-avoidance
Why only now and not 15 years ago?
The problem with Google and similar companies is simply the perception in the wider electorate they are not "paying their way" or "doing their bit". It also weakens the already-battered notion of "we're all in this together". Well, yes, and if you can hire decent accountants and lawyers you don't have to be in it as much as everyone else.
Perceptions rather than facts dominate whether on tax avoidance or immigration it would seem.
David's piece this morning (for which, as always, many thanks) and this piece aren't that far apart. For any aspiring successor to Cameron, the question becomes "how do I stand out from the crowd ?". Among the group of selling platers lining up to succeed Cameron, there has to be a decent handicapper.
The notion that REMAIN has the EU Referendum in the bag already (aided by Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan's money and LEAVE's inability to do or say anything coherent) is possibly preventing anyone sticking their proverbials above the parapet but, on the assumption Cameron peddles his thin gruel as some meaningful reform, there will be a lot of unconvinced people out there, some of whom will be in the Conservative Party.
So does some senior Conservative have the cojones to challenge Cameron by opposing him on the EU argument and publicly backing LEAVE ? It's a gamble, a huge one but if LEAVE wins, said individual will be in a very powerful place and almost certain, whether Cameron likes it or not, to be the next Prime Minister. Even if REMAIN wins (and let's assume it grinds out an unconvincing Sindyref win rather than a convincing Avref win) this time, LEAVE won't leave, as it were, and it won't be bad to be distinctive as parties rarely choose John Jackson to follow Jack Johnson.
Boris has flip-flopped more than a plane-load of holidaymakers, Hammond makes the Invisible Man look obvious and May seems paralysed by her own fear of losing the Home Office while the rest of the claimers in the Cabinet aren't seemingly willing to break cover at this time.
The same Osborne who was too busy yachting with oligarchs in summer 2008 to notice that the economy was in recession.
The same Osborne who though the Irish economy was the place to 'look and learn' from.
Osborne has a history of not doing his homework.
This was a line being peddled by the TPA the other day and it was a pretty persuasive argument on the basis Corporation Tax has failed to keep up with the evolution of business and the global economy.
If the TPA proposal brought in as much if not revenue, was harder to avoid and easier and cheaper to administer, it would seem to tick all the boxes.
" Growth in the UK economy for the coming five years is estimated to be: 1.2 per cent this year and 2.3 per cent next year; Then 2.8 per cent in 2012 followed by 2.9 per cent in 2013; Then 2.7 per cent in both 2014 and in 2015. "
Actual GDP growth:
2010 1.5%
2011 2.0%
2012 1.2%
2013 2.2%
2014 2.9%
2015 2.2%
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=IHYP&dataset=pgdp&table-id=PREL
And significantly worse on a GDP per capita basis.
I dare say that Labour supporters might point out that the economy did better than expected the year Osborne took charge but worse than he predicted in four of the following five years ;-)
By comparison the six years after the 1980-81 and 1991 recessions saw these GDP increases:
1982 2.1%
1983 4.2%
1984 2.3%
1985 4.1%
1986 3.2%
1987 5.6%
1992 0.4%
1993 2.6%
1994 4.0%
1995 2.5%
1996 2.7%
1997 3.1%
My company's biggest project last year was in Turkey. We paid zero to the Turkish exchequer.
Needless to say the massive UK tourism deficit continues with expenditure overseas up 8% this year while revenues from abroad are flat.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_431580.pdf
If it wasn't for the referendum then Osborne would be much shorter.
"Sexual violence-according to Cyclefree-is the result of immigrants being brought up in repressive misogynistic Muslim countries. How do we explain these Scandinavian neo-Nazi thugs. The Vikings?"
And this is what I actually said at 08:03 am:-
"It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive."
@Roger: you are free to disagree. But do not misrepresent what I have written. You do it repeatedly. And it is tiresome.
And even if she was 'careless', someone who is so careless should be allowed nowhere near any sensitive information.
I don't think its regarded as a problem if a company is seen to pay its 'fair share' of tax 'somewhere'.
But when tax havens and accounting tricks are believed to be involved its not well thought of.
Now I don't know the details of Google's tax arrangements but after Starbucks with its Luxemburg transfer pricing and Kraft with its Channel Islands 'loans' all such globalised businesses have become tarred with the same brush.
After defenestrating Margaret Thatcher, the Conservative MPs chose effectively the "continuity Thatcher" candidate as it seemed at the time. Major went on to basically re-constitute the previous Cabinet but brought back Heseltine and managed to convince the electorate there had been a change of Government whereas all there had been was a change of Government style.
Osborne isn't Cameron and would struggle if he tried to be but the problem is that while Thatcher had become significantly unpopular, Cameron so far isn't and hasn't. To replace a popular Prime Minister isn't easy and it becomes much harder if you appoint an unpopular successor but who else among the platers would match Cameron for public trust and confidence ?
Boris perhaps but reading the Conservative members on here suggests they aren't that convinced. The takeover of suburban rail franchises around London by TfL is back door re-nationalisation and a reversal of the privatisation agenda which doesn't sound very Conservative to me and is more like a power grab for the Mayor's office.
Looking at reports of the demos in Dover today.
Generally described as Anti-Immigration rally and Anti-Racism rally.
Why the difference?
Should it not be Anti and Pro immigration etc.
Otherwise she is home, and any of the Hair Bear Bunch that the Republicans are choosing from would not be able to beat her.
And of course one well known alternative was so stupid that he walked out of the shadow cabinet on a pretext even before the election. So through no real fault of the PM there are not many names pushing themselves forward.
So it would take quite a bit of lateral thinking to come up with an alternative to Osborne.
In the same way as doing something scary and radical like walking out of the EU into ... ? ... well where, so then choosing a new party leader never mind incumbent PM is fraught with danger.
Fraught. Fraught is a word that should scare the bejeezus out of every tory MP and voting party member. Fraught is not a word to be toyed with. I'm guessing that the PCP have taken on board the cavalier approach to 'fraught' which beset the Labour 2015 intake, as will the membership.
What I think we will see is one or two serious younger names being put forward as markers for the future and one fruity loop Corbynesque right wing nut job, oh and Osborne. Osborne himself would be about 49 in 2020; Theresa May will be about 64.
Agree with your second paragraph.
Why Ireland?
The corporate tax rate there is just 12.5%, a lot lower than most EU countries. Although rates vary depending on turnover, UK corporate tax is 20%, in France it is 33.33% and Italy 27.5%. Germany's rate is 30-33%.
So all the revenues that pour in from sales across Europe, including the UK, end up being taxed at just 12.5% in Dublin."
This seems to be the heart of the issue.
The only way to "solve" this is to harmonise tax rates across the EU (Corporation tax) so that MNCs don't choose Ireland for their headquarters. Even then why should Google move out of it's Dublin headquarters.
The real issue with this is that when we gave Ireland all that money way back when we didn't insist on them raising their Corp tax rate. This is just a logical consequence of that. I see Zero issue with what Google has done and think we're lucky to get $130 Million to be frank.
This is very different from the transfer pricing shenanigans of Starbucks where there are alot of stores here.
The problem with "clamping down" too much is that Google will decide: we don't need to have people selling the advertising in the UK, they can do it from Dublin. Companies are rational, and this is a globalised world: you can sell Internet advertising from anywhere in the world, the servers can exist anywhere in the world.
It's a hard problem to solve.
That wouldn't even change if the company had a separate business unit in Turkey, which would be taxed as an independent business. So long as the project was an export from the UK business unit, the profit from it gets taxed in the UK.
That's just the way this stuff works right now. It would be possible to completely change the way things work - what Lord Lawson is suggesting (or Max on here a few days back) would be a radical overhaul - but it would require widespread international agreement (including from countries which would stand to lose out on the deal). It's not going to happen any time soon, even if momentum starts building in that direction.
As far as I can see, campaigners' best chance with Google is to "persuade" (pressure/shame) them into booking some of their sales to the UK to the London office.
If one group turn out to oppose what the other are protesting about, have the intellectual honesty to describe them as such.
IIRC You generally see demonstrations about hunting described as such.
If the referendum is lost for the mixed bunch that is Leave - do you seriously see the public falling over themselves to punish (what for?) Cameron and rush over to Farage and UKIP.
Farage is already plotting his future, on an opposite track to Trump, as a media talking head and reality TV star.
Maybe it's time to say goodbye to corporation tax. It hardly raises any money anyway.
Lots of companies employ international sales agents in an overseas territory to negotiate contracts for the export of their goods or services, but the sale ultimately gets booked back in the exporter's country.
If you push Google really, really hard on the matter, isn't the end-game likely to be everything done from telesales in Ireland, as rcs points out? (They might still leave their developers in the UK. But it's difficult to argue that the UK coders are somehow directly responsible for ad sales in the UK.)
I think one can reasonably query, in Google's case where their product is so ethereal, why they need to export from Ireland... with "persuasion" of some kind (an appropriate carrot or stick) perhaps they could just as well sell their product from London.
But I'm writing a thread about that. Entitled 'Leave must not embody the spirit of Enoch Powell if they want to win'
BBC - Three people were arrested amid violent scenes as groups demonstrating against immigration clashed with anti-racism protesters in Dover.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-35450115
Then the Rumbelows Cup Final againt Citeh a few days later.
The NF and BNP etc generally have fairly left wing ideas re state ownership and what have you.
How about describing it as:
'one group of left wing nutters throwing bricks at another group of left wing nutters'?
As for the GO decriers on here, he's done a much better job than most would have done in the circumstances, interesting that those putting the boot in would know how to start to deal with the deficit, all the suggestions ignore the politics of dealing with it
The current govt have cut CT from 28% to 21% over the last five years yet the amount paid has gone up to almost 2007 levels this year - due to international businesses choosing to base in the UK and a load more choosing not to relocate to Ireland or Luxembourg. George is trying to work out how much above Irish levels it need to be in order to maximise revenue.
rcs1000 says they will go away ! Really ? Leave sales of £ 4.6bn ?
I might bet on Leicester so I'm happy either way!
£32.5m for Benteke, what was Ian Ayre smoking when he made that deal with Villa?