|
|
Post by gigoguy on May 16, 2017 23:20:43 GMT
I've just heard the Tory objections to the tax increases for business in the labour manifesto.
'Large companies will just change their accounting so the tax isn't collected. And the people that will be affected most are hard working families who's living costs will go up'
Errrrrrr what? You mean the benevolent companies and their directors won't make a 0.5% extra contribution for the good of the country? I don't believe that!
Shock horror!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by phil70 on May 16, 2017 23:34:42 GMT
I had exactly the same thought, and wish to add my shock horror
Phil
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 5:17:58 GMT
I've just heard the Tory objections to the tax increases for business in the labour manifesto. 'Large companies will just change their accounting so the tax isn't collected. And the people that will be affected most are hard working families who's living costs will go up' Errrrrrr what? You mean the benevolent companies and their directors won't make a 0.5% extra contribution for the good of the country? I don't believe that! Shock horror!!!!! By admitting they can 'change their accounting' to avoid paying more tax, doesn't that show how corrupt the elitist system is? Are they really above our democratically elected government? Shock horror!  If Corbin is for real and hasn't been sucked in as a puppet for of our elitist system then all well and good. The trouble is we may not find out unless he becomes PM. He's making all the right noises (well left really). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 8:15:52 GMT
You don't have to worry.
Diane Abbott has costed it all.
Rog
|
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 17, 2017 9:09:55 GMT
You don't have to worry. Diane Abbott has costed it all. Rog She definatly needs a new calculator. There are some pretty large numbers in that manifesto am I being cynical in thinking they can say what they like. O cw10 in power they can then say they reviewed the finances and there is not as much money as they thought. That or there going to use the promised Boris brexit bus money. |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on May 17, 2017 9:49:00 GMT
Some of it seems reasonable. Water in Scotland has never been privatised and it seems so much better than the English system where there are a bunch of monopolies (ie it is allegedly a "market" but you can't choose your supplier). All those rail companies make life REALLY confusing and difficult for customers.
But raising taxes for higher earners never works, people either don't bother to earn that much or find ways around the tax. I am all for those with more income paying a bit more but you don't need a tiered tax system for that. If I earn 100,000 and pay tax at 40%, I pay a hell of a lot more tax than someone who earns £50,000. Which is as it should be. Once you put tax rates right up it just acts as a deterrent to success, folk move abroad etc. Remember when tax for high earners was 99% under labour?
What I think should be tackled is obscene levels of boardroom pay especially when the company isn't in profit. Can't remember which company but one was in the news recently because the board had awarded themselves a huge pay rise from an already huge salary, whilst the company continued to make a loss. But my feeling is that taxation isn't the way to address this issue. Same with those morons whose sole purpose in life is to move a ball from one end of a field to the other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 10:02:45 GMT
...Snip... What I think should be tackled is obscene levels of boardroom pay especially when the company isn't in profit. Can't remember which company but one was in the news recently because the board had awarded themselves a huge pay rise from an already huge salary, whilst the company continued to make a loss. But my feeling is that taxation isn't the way to address this issue. Same with those morons whose sole purpose in life is to move a ball from one end of a field to the other. Sniped bit - I think talking about 99% tax rates is a bit scaremongering at this time. Would be interested to see your thoughts as to how boardroom pay (or ball players pay) can be addressed. |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on May 17, 2017 10:28:37 GMT
...Snip... What I think should be tackled is obscene levels of boardroom pay especially when the company isn't in profit. Can't remember which company but one was in the news recently because the board had awarded themselves a huge pay rise from an already huge salary, whilst the company continued to make a loss. But my feeling is that taxation isn't the way to address this issue. Same with those morons whose sole purpose in life is to move a ball from one end of a field to the other. Sniped bit - I think talking about 99% tax rates is a bit scaremongering at this time. Would be interested to see your thoughts as to how boardroom pay (or ball players pay) can be addressed. No I wasn't trying to scaremonger, just to show that raising the rate of taxation isnt a good way to increase revenue. I'm not trying to suggest that Labour has a secret agenda to raise the rate of tax to 99% even though they did it before.
As to addressing obscene levels of boardroom pay it is obviously difficult otherwise someone would have done it! How about having a maximum rate of pay by law that is dependent on a few factors such as profit, company's pension scheme deficit etc? So lets say for the sake of argument that you set a legal maximum basic pay of say £150k, and then an additional rate of pay that is a function of the company's profit AND its pension deficit. So to get more than 150k you have to have a fully funded pension scheme AND be in profit - with the board pay award limited to some % of profit. I would also include share awards and pension contributions in this so that you cant get huge extra "perks" on top of your salary. Why do people need to earn £500k+ when other people are on the minimum wage. What do they do with all that money?
Why should boardroom chappies get huge amounts of pay whilst the workforce's pension fund is at risk?
As to footballers, well I would ban professional football altogether. That would sort it, but I suppose it might be a bit unpopular amongst those whose only pleasure in life is watching someone else do something. But think of the money saved in policing, reductions in violence and vandalism. Football seems to be mostly a harbour for thugs, hooligans and rascists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 10:57:14 GMT
Thanks for your thoughts on boardroom pay, they seem to make sense but I know it is a difficult question to solve. Only thoughts I have about your suggestion is that can it take into account good and bad years? I've run a very small company before and I used some retained profit of the good years to help me in the bad years - seemed sensible but not sure how this scales up to large businesses.
Further question - would a modest increase in tax aimed at the higher earners really have that much of an affect on how the higher earners conduct their tax affairs? It would be helpful if you defined a modest increase, is it 1% or 5%. Q asked because I don't know the answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 17, 2017 11:11:32 GMT
Thanks for your thoughts on boardroom pay, they seem to make sense but I know it is a difficult question to solve. Only thoughts I have about your suggestion is that can it take into account good and bad years? I've run a very small company before and I used some retained profit of the good years to help me in the bad years - seemed sensible but not sure how this scales up to large businesses. Further question - would a modest increase in tax aimed at the higher earners really have that much of an affect on how the higher earners conduct their tax affairs? It would be helpful if you defined a modest increase, is it 1% or 5%. Q asked because I don't know the answer. Saving up during the good years for the bad ones is good practice but paying massive bonuses to bosses of failing business is an insult to the employees who work the socks of to save the business, often without any bonus. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 11:20:06 GMT
Thanks for your thoughts on boardroom pay, they seem to make sense but I know it is a difficult question to solve. Only thoughts I have about your suggestion is that can it take into account good and bad years? I've run a very small company before and I used some retained profit of the good years to help me in the bad years - seemed sensible but not sure how this scales up to large businesses. Further question - would a modest increase in tax aimed at the higher earners really have that much of an affect on how the higher earners conduct their tax affairs? It would be helpful if you defined a modest increase, is it 1% or 5%. Q asked because I don't know the answer. Saving up during the good years for the bad ones is good practice but paying massive bonuses to bosses of failing business is an insult to the employees who work the socks of to save the business, often without any bonus. I and I think Telemachus agree with you. How to stop the massive bonuses from happening seems far from simple to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on May 17, 2017 11:29:35 GMT
One thing completely missing - as far as I can make out - is they a talking of borrowing to pay for infrastructure investment/nationalisation etc, putting aside what I think about borrowing £200 Billion what I want to know is why is the interest due on the loan missing from the operating budget. At 3% that would be £6 Billion per year. If interest rates should rise, or we have to borrow in USD and the pound falls, then the amounts will only go up. What a great 'gift' to leave to our children and grand children.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 11:52:02 GMT
You don't have to worry. Diane Abbott has costed it all. Rog Never mind, I see Mrs May has refused to say that the current Chancellor will still be in place after the election. So much for the reassurance of a stable government. |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on May 17, 2017 11:57:23 GMT
Further question - would a modest increase in tax aimed at the higher earners really have that much of an affect on how the higher earners conduct their tax affairs? It would be helpful if you defined a modest increase, is it 1% or 5%. Q asked because I don't know the answer. Well firstly, those earning say £80k+ don't make up that much of the tax take so any increase on them has a pretty minor effect overall, compared to say 1p on the basic tax rate that most people (in employment) have to pay. Secondly if you are near a threshold it doesn't make too much sense to work to get your income into the next band just to pay lots of tax on it. As an example, let's take a retired chap who has a nice fat final salary pension and a lot of cash in a cash pension fund, and from the latter he can take pretty much what he wants within reason. In Englandshire they recently increased the 40% tax threshold, but in Scotland they decided not to. So if the chap lived in England, he might as well take more from his cash fund so that his income just missed the new 40% bracket. But if he lived in Scotland he would take less so as to stay below the 40% threshold and thus pay less tax at the 20% rate and have less spare cash to spend on luxuries that help boost the economy. So the policy both reduces the tax take and reduces economic stimulus - but of course the SNP are too thick to see that. The same applies to someone in work contributing to a pension scheme who gets a pay rise - might as well contribute more to the scheme so as to keep income below 40% tax threshold, rather than paying 40% on the increased pay. Again, tax take lost and economic stimulus stifled. Of course I am concentrating on those near the thresholds, but generally if you are going to have to pay a high rate of tax, where is the incentive to work hard and progress in your career? Lots of people in middle England are near the 40% bracket these days, no longer is it a "super tax". With a fixed rate of tax, if you earn more you pay more and that seems fair enough to me. So this is why I dislike high rates of taxation, and they have always proven an unsuccessful way to run a country. And it always smacks of envy and a resentment of success to me! |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on May 17, 2017 11:57:49 GMT
You don't have to worry. Diane Abbott has costed it all. Rog Never mind, I see Mrs May has refused to say that the current Chancellor will still be in place after the election. So much for the reassurance of a stable government. The horses will be relieved! |
|
