I've just emailed Corbyn to get him to ask a question at PMQ's about the state of pig farming in the UK
He'll support them because they're a left leaning minority whose bacon is exploited by them there capitalist pig farmers.
The labour Leader thread...
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
He'll support them because they're a left leaning minority whose bacon is exploited by them there capitalist pig farmers.
Except that (a) corporation tax is levelled on profits that leave the country as well as those that stay and (b) the impact is different to directly levelled taxes.
i think people have rose tinted glasses because when it was gov owned it was much worse than it is now - much worse.
I think if you want to collect more corporation tax then you need to make it more attractive for business to pay it in the UK. It's very short sighted to think of the UK as an insular entity when it comes to how business works and is done in the modern world.
As an owner of a technology and consulting business we have a number of LTD entities globally and although at the moment the primary one is a UK business (paying UK corporation tax!) there is no reason why we could not choose to pay corporation tax in any one of a few locations... in fact it would be cheaper for us to re-structure and pay corporation tax out of our Singapore or Hong Kong entities (around 3% - 4%).
It is a too simple argument to say just raising corporation tax here increases tax revenue.. business is done globally that's only going to increase in significance the UK needs to be competitive on a global basis.
As an owner of a technology and consulting business we have a number of LTD entities globally and although at the moment the primary one is a UK business (paying UK corporation tax!) there is no reason why we could not choose to pay corporation tax in any one of a few locations... in fact it would be cheaper for us to re-structure and pay corporation tax out of our Singapore or Hong Kong entities (around 3% - 4%).
It is a too simple argument to say just raising corporation tax here increases tax revenue.. business is done globally that's only going to increase in significance the UK needs to be competitive on a global basis.
And I think people have blinkers on when they compare governments from then as the world is a much different place than it was 40 years ago - much different.
why dont you then seems odd to waste 4% for no reason?
fair enough, but there still needs to be a decent plan - most people i've talked to seem to think you can just nationalise it and somehow everything would be much better.
I'm not against nationalising part of the service but it should be as a benchmark.
By that I mean still have a competitive open market but run a nationalised company alongside the private with the mandate of the nationalised company being to operate a service at a good quality standard at the lowest price possible (a price which doesn't result in an operating loss) then private companies can compete against that. You'll probably see competition being in one of two camps dirt cheap but will do the job (like an easy jet) or high quality service with Al the thrills for the cash rich (like a Dubai airlines)
My only worry is a nationalised service would be once again abide by self serving unions, if it was started part of the business rules would be that unions are not allowed or recognised and striking is illegal. God forbid unions take over again (which is what Corbyn wants)
So yeah, if done right I think it could work but I have no doubt there will be too many out there with their own agenda which subvert any real benefit to the public.
By that I mean still have a competitive open market but run a nationalised company alongside the private with the mandate of the nationalised company being to operate a service at a good quality standard at the lowest price possible (a price which doesn't result in an operating loss) then private companies can compete against that. You'll probably see competition being in one of two camps dirt cheap but will do the job (like an easy jet) or high quality service with Al the thrills for the cash rich (like a Dubai airlines)
My only worry is a nationalised service would be once again abide by self serving unions, if it was started part of the business rules would be that unions are not allowed or recognised and striking is illegal. God forbid unions take over again (which is what Corbyn wants)
So yeah, if done right I think it could work but I have no doubt there will be too many out there with their own agenda which subvert any real benefit to the public.
Well, they have all the money, so of course they pay all the tax, but it's not about absolute values but proportions - and yes, we, they, us can afford to pay a higher proportion of our income in tax
Here we go again "Won't something think of the
It's amazing you would think every pension company in the world has just one investment - which is the current one being discussed when people talk about renationalisation, rather than it being a small part of their overall portfolio. And if it isn't then they are a pretty crap pension company
Oh, and investments can go down as well as up you know
The irony is that the government spends significantly more on rail subsidies now than they ever did when the trains were run by Brisith Rail.
How much investment the railways receive is more important than who runs them.
A mixture of the cost and effort to make the change.. and patriotism is probably to strong a word but we are proud to be a UK business... clearly there comes a point where that gets overridden by the business sense to make the change but at the moment we are content with the position.
If however corporation tax was to increase.. or for instance certain incentives (such as R&D tax credits) were to be removed then we would have to re-evaluate.
Which is why the major issue isn't the rate of corporation tax but ensuring that businesses pay it on UK business. This means altering the way in which businesses are permitted to localise their tax affairs and closing loopholes.
They can legislate all they like but if you have two non-UK (or even EU) businesses making a transaction its going to be legislated by the law at point of sale.. nothing to do with the UK.
Where you have one of the entities in the UK they can probably close loopholes.. this I would say primarily effects B2C transactions.. no reason however in a B2B transaction where both parties are "global" for any of that transaction to take place in the UK. There needs to be a change of mind-set for business to want to operate out of specific geographies.. we are no longer little closed boxes
Last edited:
If privatization is so much better then why do we have to subside the rail companies? It's hypocritical to claim they are better under private ownership and then still rely on taxpayers. I bet they wouldn't be quite as good if they had to spend from their own pockets.
When nationalised the railways don't have to worry about providing a dividend to shareholders and any profit can be re-invested if necessary.
On inequality and passing legislation to force wages up, this quote struck a chord for me:
I'm starting to feel like the sheen of uncontrolled capitalism is wearing off. The message is starting to get through; trickle down economics is a flawed model. Its greatest achievement has been the way it has increased the wealth of those at the top at the expense of those at the bottom. In increasing numbers, people are starting to question the idea that the rich getting richer is somehow making them richer. Deep down we all know it's untrue. The challenge is in cutting through all of the propaganda to get to the real truth.
I'm starting to feel like the sheen of uncontrolled capitalism is wearing off. The message is starting to get through; trickle down economics is a flawed model. Its greatest achievement has been the way it has increased the wealth of those at the top at the expense of those at the bottom. In increasing numbers, people are starting to question the idea that the rich getting richer is somehow making them richer. Deep down we all know it's untrue. The challenge is in cutting through all of the propaganda to get to the real truth.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,565
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
The thing is the countries which embrace capitalism tend to be better off - across the board. Yes, there are still people who one might describe as poor, but these things tend to be relative. In countries that embrace socialism people tend to be poorer.
I would rather live in a country where there was inequality than one where everyone was worse off.
Where was the suggestion that this is a choice between capitalism and socialism? That battle is long since dead. Capitalism is clearly the better system. That doesn't mean it is perfect though, and there's no reason not to strive for a better form of capitalism.
Which countries that embraced socialism do you refer to?
What on earth makes you think that's the choice? Why not look at countries like Denmark, Sweden or Germany with lower inequality and higher per capita GDP. What's more because those countries have lower inequality they're not just better off on average, the vast majority of people are better off through lower inequality as well.
In fact there's evidence that inequality lowers growth. I'm sure you'll dismiss them as frothing left wingers but even the OECD believe that it does so.