Lords defeat government over tax credits cut

estebanrey said:
What a load of horse ****.

"When did you stop beating your wife" contains a presupposition (that you are already beating your wife), whereas "can you guarantee that no one will be be worse off under your plans to change tax credits" doesn't contain any presuppositions other than the Tories are planning to change tax credits (which they are so not a presupposition). You're comparing apples with oranges.

Just because you personally think whether Cameron says 'yes' or 'no' he can't win doesn't make the two questions synonymous.

Besides I disagree that he'd look bad whatever he said. He could have said...

"Yes, we will revise our plans to ensure that tax credits will reduce in line with minimum wage increase"

..or he could have said

"No, I can't. Changing any state benefit will always leave some people worse off but our job is to ensure that number is as small as possible and to ensure there is a greater good for everyone"
Click to expand...

It would be refreshing to see such a transparent open stance from any UK party.. It won't happen though as you'd never make it up through the ranks without conforming to certain ideals held by any given party.

You'd probably also get 'disappeared' by the media.
 
From this week's Private Eye: http://i.imgur.com/Uqiz77s.jpg

Uqiz77s.jpg
 
Hitman_Leon said:
Explain please?
Click to expand...

1) Capital allowances - tax version of accounting depreciation to give relief to capital expenditure, e.g. plant, machinery, vehicles etc. Not available on certain capital expenditure like land or buildings. So bog standard and normal it's boring.

2) Adjustment in respect of prior years - it's an adjustment to the accounting tax provision of prior years to adjust to the actual tax paid to HMRC.

3) Timing difference - it's in the name. There's a timing difference between accounts and tax for deductibility of certain items.

4) Historic losses - woop de doo, they made £200m of sales. Corporation tax isn't paid on sales so how is that a useful metric?

5) Credit in 2010 - how? It's highly likely to be an accounting correction to correct an OVER recognition of tax.

Seriously, journalists should be banned from reporting on tax matters in this way. It seriously damages the good work HMRC do, and unfairly paints companies as being somehow abusive.

No tax in 2015? No **** Sherlock. 2011, 2012 and 2013 were loss making.
 
I could rant on, I'm tempted to rant on. Especially at the hypocrisy of the media to castigate big businesses or MPs' interests without having the shred of knowledge to realise how completely ridiculous their statements are.
 
Pudney said:
1) Capital allowances - tax version of accounting depreciation to give relief to capital expenditure, e.g. plant, machinery, vehicles etc. Not available on certain capital expenditure like land or buildings. So bog standard and normal it's boring.

2) Adjustment in respect of prior years - it's an adjustment to the accounting tax provision of prior years to adjust to the actual tax paid to HMRC.

3) Timing difference - it's in the name. There's a timing difference between accounts and tax for deductibility of certain items.

4) Historic losses - woop de doo, they made £200m of sales. Corporation tax isn't paid on sales so how is that a useful metric?

5) Credit in 2010 - how? It's highly likely to be an accounting correction to correct an OVER recognition of tax.

Seriously, journalists should be banned from reporting on tax matters in this way. It seriously damages the good work HMRC do, and unfairly paints companies as being somehow abusive.

No tax in 2015? No **** Sherlock. 2011, 2012 and 2013 were loss making.
Click to expand...

Osborne and Co will be taking Private Eye to court I assume then?

Nope, thought not.
 
Moses said:
Shoddy reporting doesn't necessarily mean it's lies. It can mean the information is presented terribly, so simpleton readers can easily get confused and think the situation's worse than it is (where as a reasonably knowledgeable reader would know that nothing dodgy is going on).

Like how UKIP present facts to their audience in a way which makes them think the reality's worse than it is.
Click to expand...

I'm glad someone understood the use of shoddy. :D
 
Pudney said:
1) Capital allowances - tax version of accounting depreciation to give relief to capital expenditure, e.g. plant, machinery, vehicles etc. Not available on certain capital expenditure like land or buildings. So bog standard and normal it's boring.

2) Adjustment in respect of prior years - it's an adjustment to the accounting tax provision of prior years to adjust to the actual tax paid to HMRC.

3) Timing difference - it's in the name. There's a timing difference between accounts and tax for deductibility of certain items.

4) Historic losses - woop de doo, they made £200m of sales. Corporation tax isn't paid on sales so how is that a useful metric?

5) Credit in 2010 - how? It's highly likely to be an accounting correction to correct an OVER recognition of tax.

Seriously, journalists should be banned from reporting on tax matters in this way. It seriously damages the good work HMRC do, and unfairly paints companies as being somehow abusive.

No tax in 2015? No **** Sherlock. 2011, 2012 and 2013 were loss making.
Click to expand...

Think you're missing the point somewhat. At no point in that article was Private Eye suggesting that Osborne & Little were breaking any accounting laws.
 
Pudney said:
1) Capital allowances - tax version of accounting depreciation to give relief to capital expenditure, e.g. plant, machinery, vehicles etc. Not available on certain capital expenditure like land or buildings. So bog standard and normal it's boring.

2) Adjustment in respect of prior years - it's an adjustment to the accounting tax provision of prior years to adjust to the actual tax paid to HMRC.

3) Timing difference - it's in the name. There's a timing difference between accounts and tax for deductibility of certain items.

4) Historic losses - woop de doo, they made £200m of sales. Corporation tax isn't paid on sales so how is that a useful metric?

5) Credit in 2010 - how? It's highly likely to be an accounting correction to correct an OVER recognition of tax.

Seriously, journalists should be banned from reporting on tax matters in this way. It seriously damages the good work HMRC do, and unfairly paints companies as being somehow abusive.

No tax in 2015? No **** Sherlock. 2011, 2012 and 2013 were loss making.
Click to expand...

I don't see how any of this counteracts the key point of the column which is that a seemingly successful company can not return any tax in seven consecutive years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom