well you're sort of missing the point of them then... what do you think kept Western Europe safe from even a conventional military invasion by the Soviets over several decades if not for the threat of nukes... fact is they massively outnumbered us in terms of conventional forces
Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II
- Thread starter Zefan
- Start date
- Status
well you're sort of missing the point of them then... what do you think kept Western Europe safe from even a conventional military invasion by the Soviets over several decades if not for the threat of nukes... fact is they massively outnumbered us in terms of conventional forces
Have you got a source for this? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely interested.
Have you got a source for this? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely interested.
Have a read of this, it explains why it isn't as simple a picture as Roar is portraying
https://www.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7e-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7
UK corporation tax receipts surged to a record high during the past financial year despite the main rate falling from 30 per cent in 2008 to 19 per cent today. Linking tax cuts to higher revenues is a theory once derided by George H W Bush, the former US president, as “voodoo economics”. But if that is not the cause for the bumper receipts, what are the factors responsible? UK economy has grown, and profits with it Official public finance data, published on Tuesday, found the UK government had raised £56bn from corporation tax during the 2016-17 financial year, a 21 per cent increase from the previous year. In part, this is because the government has changed the date of when corporation tax payments appear in the figures in a way that has flattered this year’s tax take. However, on a purely cash basis receipts increased by a still impressive 12.6 per cent. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the government’s fiscal watchdog, expects them to increase even further as more small companies pay their tax. Some of the increase can be explained by rising corporate profits. According to the Office for National Statistics, the net rate of onshore companies’ profitability reached 12.7 per cent in 2016 — the highest level since 1999. Profitability has successively risen from a rate of 8.8 per cent in 2009 during the recession following the financial crisis. Matt Mealey, a partner at EY, the professional services firm, said the fall in the value of the pound after the EU referendum had played its part in boosting profitability because it had helped exporters who earn revenues in foreign currencies but whose costs are priced in sterling. In 2013, the Treasury tried to estimate how much of the cost of the corporate tax cuts would be recouped as a result of increased growth. It predicted the rate cuts would push up profits, wages and consumption, which would all tend to bring in extra taxes. As a result, it suggested the cost of the corporate tax cut in lost revenue would fall “by between 45 per cent and 60 per cent in the long term”. Banks are paying more corporate tax Banks’ corporate tax payments have increased markedly since their low in 2011-12. Andrew Packman of PwC, the professional services firm, said: “As the banks’ profitability recovers, we are expecting very significant increases in the tax paid by banks.” Tighter restrictions introduced in April 2016 on carrying forward losses to offset profits has pushed up receipts by an amount the government has estimated at £330m. The figures also include £1.1bn paid by banks following the introduction of the 8 per cent surcharge on their profits in January 2016. But takings from the bank levy, which is based on lenders’ balance sheets, declined from £3.4bn to £2.9bn in the year to 2017 as the government reduced the rate. Weak investment spending Companies can offset some of their investments against their profits to reduce their tax bill. The idea is to give them a tax incentive to make more investment. For this reason the OBR has a rule of thumb that a 1 per cent increase in business investment leads to £50m less in tax receipts. But business investment fell by 2 per cent in 2016, according to the ONS. This was good news for the public finances, which received more in corporation tax revenue, despite being bad news for the overall economy. Crackdown on avoidance Related article UK shelves changes to dividend tax, non-doms and digital tax More than 70 clauses in finance bill put on hold until after the election The impact of a global crackdown on “base erosion and profit shifting” agreed in October 2015 is likely to have swelled tax receipts. Businesses have been unwinding complicated structures that shifted profits to low-tax countries, such as “hybrid” structures that took advantage of differences in different countries’ tax rules. In the year to April 2016, HM Revenue & Customs intensified its investigations into multinationals’ cross-border deals, pushing up their potential exposure by 60 per cent to nearly £4bn. They are also likely to have collected significant revenues from accelerated payment notices, which require tax avoiders to pay disputed tax up front before the dispute over the legality of the avoidance scheme is settled. The ‘Google’ tax The tax take from big companies is also likely to reflect new legislation — the “Google tax” — that was introduced to stop companies diverting profits overseas. Formally known as the diverted profits tax, it was originally expected to bring in £270m last year. The revenues have been included in the corporate tax receipts. Britain’s attractiveness to global companies Since 2010, the UK government has tried to show Britain is “open for business” by gradually cutting the corporate tax rate to 19 per cent — with plans to cut it further to 17 per cent in 2020. A number of companies, including McDonald’s and Starbucks, have moved headquarters or other parts of their operations to the UK. But the uncertainty over what a final Brexit deal will look like has also had an impact on the UK’s appeal, particularly for multinationals with headquarters outside the UK. A recent survey conducted by KPMG, the professional services firm, pointed to a possible net outflow of business operations from the UK.
Have you got a source for this? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely interested.
It was a BBC news article the other day on business rates, didn't really surprise me though to be honest, increasing tax rates doesn't mean you'll generate more revenue whatever kind of tax it is.
I've pasted the article into a spoiler if you can't see past the paywall
At the end of the day it's a balancing act, you can't just say reducing tax rates increases the tax take. Let's take that to the ludicrous end conclusion and just have 0%, bumper receipts no? Or how about 0.1%?
There is obviously points where the rate can be set too high, and business do anything to avoid paying it, legally and illegally and conversely where rates are too low that any further reduction is not any further stimulus to business to try and avoid it.
It's also not a single point, but a range, and where Corp Tax rates are around the 20-30% mark I don't see as a big issue
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,927
The use of the word investment to describe spending always makes me scratch my head. Very rarely apart from maybe infrastructure is the Government spending to reap a financial gain. Most NHS investment is spending people just don't like describing it as such. Parties telling us they are going to invest a lot are just spending a lot there won't be a return at the end just a service provided . Let's be honest and describe it as such and decide if that's how we want to spend our money instead of playing accounting games to pretend we're living within our means.
Associate
I think the rumoured possible conservative plans for state controlled internet soured a lot of people on a computer forum. That's a big bit of news released between the polls and must be contributing to the swing reason, as this is usually a conservative majority forum.
SNP MP's have a long standing tradition of abstaining in devolved issues which don't affect Scotland. I can't see that changing any time soon.
Regarding Nuclear weapons, from orbit or not. If you use them first, you've completely failed as a politician and at diplomacy. If you have to retaliate, they're not a deterrent. I cannot see s time when any sane first world leader EVER fires first. And I'm very glad about that.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 368
So the tories are refusing to say no increases in tax, except for high earners.
Enjoy the stealth tax rises, folks. IPT up again no doubt.
Enjoy the stealth tax rises, folks. IPT up again no doubt.
I doubt we ever will fire first, there will probably never be the need, the problem is that if there was the need Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't. If there was an existential threat to the UK Corbyn doesn't have the balls to take the threat out, that's the issue I have. I can't trust him with the security of the country because deep down he's a pacifist and an apologist, on top of his communist tenancies.
I know where my money is better off and it's certainly better off away from people like Corbyn and Abbott.
Soldato
Are you stupid? Can you really not engage a single brain cell and realise what the analogy was doing without being so clueless?
- Status