O/T Corbyn will eclipse Rotherham's record losing streak

[KerrAvon]

Ok, so, where does this leave the poorest people in our society Kerr, genuinely i need to know some answers, because as far as i can see, i'm seeing increased profits in business as a whole, i'm seeing the country's billionaires becoming extra extra rich, i'm seeing rich people avoiding tax and using tax havens(ex prime minster being one of them) taking wealth out of the country....i'm also seeing foodbanks increasing by 700%, homelessness rising significantly, in work poverty is rife, ****e wages, zero hour contracts...there's definitely a balance, and that balance is, on the face of it, weighing massively in favour of the rich, don't you agree?

You'll have to excuse me (or possibly be grateful) as I don't have time to make a lenghty reply to your post, but I will quickly respond as follows:

Our country supports the poorest people in society. As a starter, they have access to free health care and education, which many people around the world would love to have. There is benefits system in place that provides a safety net to them. Again, this something that many people around the world can only dream off.

As someone has already pointed out, the wealthy pay a higher proportion of their income to provide for the poorest.

Of course there’s always more that could be done for the poorest, although there is, I think, a limit to what should be spent so as to prevent a life on benefits becoming a lifestyle choice for some (as it undoubtedly has for some of the people I meet in my work). Whatever is done has to be paid for, however, and the reality of this country - 6th richest in the world or not - is that it is living beyond its means, as demonstrated by the budget and balance of trade deficits.

The best way to boost provision for the poor is by having a dynamic economy that can provide employment and tax revenues, not one where business is burdened with unsustainable levels of taxes that merely discourages investment and encourages the use of tax reduction strategies.

On foodbanks, May was berated by the left recently for suggesting the reasons why people use them are complex. In other words, she was berated for telling the truth.

If the country is such a bad place for the poorest, you may wish to ask why millions have come to it from Europe and the wider world, many of them to work in low paid jobs. The reply they will give is that it is a good place to live where there is opportunity for people who aspire to better themselves.

[KerrAvon]

I will stick up for Corbyn here Kerr, although I believe he is unelectable and has damaged the Labour party, he isn't suggesting that business is bad, he is suggesting that bad business is bad and that there is an alternative. The way Mike Ashley runs his business is certainly not the way I want business' to be run in this country and I don't want huge companies such as Amazon and Starbucks to dictate to HMRC/UK government on how much tax they are willing to pay simply because they are powerful.

He isn't suggesting that business is bad?

"When Labour wins there will be a reckoning for those who thought they could get away with asset stripping our industry, crashing our economy through their greed and ripping off workers and consumers."

Jeremy Corbyn attacks "greedy bankers and crooked financiers" at Labour’s election campaign launch.

I appreciate that holding Amanda out as the voice of the Labour Party is wrong, but here, he or she is reproducing an extract from a speech - a soundbite designed to be reported. Was that a business friendly comment or was it designed to advance an anti-business narrative? If I were thinking of investing in the UK, comments like that would certainly give me at least a brief pause for thought.

As an aside, this speech demonstrates another reason why Corbyn won’t win. While May is reaching out across society - such as with her energy price capping proposal, Corbyn is preaching to the converted; pleasing the people who are already supporters of his cause.

As I understand it, Amazon and Starbuck both operated within the law to effectively export their profits to lower tax jurisdictions. That’s another reason why increasing corporate taxes is counter-productive – it merely encourages such behaviours.

[tony260674]

He isn't suggesting that business is bad?




I appreciate that holding Amanda out as the voice of the Labour Party is wrong, but here, he or she is reproducing an extract from a speech - a soundbite designed to be reported. Was that a business friendly comment or was it designed to advance an anti-business narrative? If I were thinking of investing in the UK, comments like that would certainly give me at least a brief pause for thought.

As an aside, this speech demonstrates another reason why Corbyn won’t win. While May is reaching out across society - such as with her energy price capping proposal, Corbyn is preaching to the converted; pleasing the people who are already supporters of his cause.

As I understand it, Amazon and Starbuck both operated within the law to effectively export their profits to lower tax jurisdictions. That’s another reason why increasing corporate taxes is counter-productive – it merely encourages such behaviours.

So you are advocating that we do not attempt to collect a fair amount of taxation from the most wealthy corporation in the world because it will encourage them to behave even worse than they currently do? That's madness!

[KerrAvon]

No, Tony. I'm stating that the government of the day has to operate within the laws that Parliament has passed to collect the taxes that are due. I'm also stating that businesses will (because they are required to) operate within those same laws to reduce their tax liabilities. Individuals do the same.

To ignore the realities above is where madness lies. Increased tax rates will operate to encourage businesses to take measures to reduce their liabilities.

[gm_gm]

So you are advocating that we do not attempt to collect a fair amount of taxation from the most wealthy corporation in the world because it will encourage them to behave even worse than they currently do? That's madness!

We do need a better fairer system, and possibly need to change the way we collect and the rules, bumping taxes will inevitably lead to lower revenues as quite a few international businesses are able to loop their way out of it.

Can you point to a time where higher taxes helps investment and growth in a global economy?

[great_fire]

Think bringing back utilities, railway, mail back into public hands is a good idea.

Unlimited immigration and no clear policy on Brexit are big no-nos for me though.

[millmoormagic]

You'll have to excuse me (or possibly be grateful) as I don't have time to make a lenghty reply to your post, but I will quickly respond as follows:

Our country supports the poorest people in society. As a starter, they have access to free health care and education, which many people around the world would love to have. There is benefits system in place that provides a safety net to them. Again, this something that many people around the world can only dream off.

As someone has already pointed out, the wealthy pay a higher proportion of their income to provide for the poorest.

Of course there’s always more that could be done for the poorest, although there is, I think, a limit to what should be spent so as to prevent a life on benefits becoming a lifestyle choice for some (as it undoubtedly has for some of the people I meet in my work). Whatever is done has to be paid for, however, and the reality of this country - 6th richest in the world or not - is that it is living beyond its means, as demonstrated by the budget and balance of trade deficits.

The best way to boost provision for the poor is by having a dynamic economy that can provide employment and tax revenues, not one where business is burdened with unsustainable levels of taxes that merely discourages investment and encourages the use of tax reduction strategies.

On foodbanks, May was berated by the left recently for suggesting the reasons why people use them are complex. In other words, she was berated for telling the truth.

If the country is such a bad place for the poorest, you may wish to ask why millions have come to it from Europe and the wider world, many of them to work in low paid jobs. The reply they will give is that it is a good place to live where there is opportunity for people who aspire to better themselves.

Agree to a point about having access to free health care etc etc, but for how long Kerr? you know as well as i do that the tories are well on their way to changing that, even John Major has stated he wouldn't trust this lot!, and that is one of the biggest things for me in this election.

I also agree about the dynamic economy, but there's has to be rules and regs, we just cannot have massive corporations dodging billions worth of tax, it's just not on, and has to be dealt with.

As for May telling the truth about foodbanks, kerr, you know that's wrong plain and simple, i know she's lying by the fact her lips are moving.

[KerrAvon]

Agree to a point about having access to free health care etc etc, but for how long Kerr? you know as well as i do that the tories are well on their way to changing that, even John Major has stated he wouldn't trust this lot!, and that is one of the biggest things for me in this election.

I also agree about the dynamic economy, but there's has to be rules and regs, we just cannot have massive corporations dodging billions worth of tax, it's just not on, and has to be dealt with.

As for May telling the truth about foodbanks, kerr, you know that's wrong plain and simple, i know she's lying by the fact her lips are moving.

If the Tories wanted to get rid of the NHS, they've had plenty of opportunities to do so since 1948. That being said, I'd like to think that one of the things that May will be able to do off the back of the strength that an increased majority will give her is to sack Hunt, who is clearly a poor custodian of the service.

We do have extensive rules and regulations governing industry and, unfortunately, perhaps, one of the most complex tax codes in the world.

The fact remains, however, that increased corporate taxes incentivises business to adopt strategies that reduce their tax liabilities. For example – and I may be wrong as I haven’t looked it up – my understanding of the Starbucks situation is that the company effectively prevented its UK based subsidiary from making a taxable profit in the UK by requiring it to pay substantial licensing feels to its Luxembourg based subsidiary for the use of intellectual property such as the Starbucks logo. In that way, the profits generated from sales in the UK could be taxed in Luxembourg. The incentive to do that was the higher rate of corporate taxes in this country compared to those in Luxembourg and, as far as I’m aware, it was entirely legal. Increased taxes will increase the use of such strategies.

Starbucks did, of course, pay wages, employment taxes, VAT, rents, business rates etc. in the UK and so the UK economy (if not it’s palate) was benefited.

There are a lot of 'facts' and figures bandied about around the subject of foodbanks and you'll have to excuse me if I express some scepticism about them when they are quoted primarily by politicians. May is clearly right to say that the reasons people use them are complex, however.

Consider this; we have a benefits system in the UK that, setting aside some of its complexities, seeks to guarantee a minimum income for everyone. Despite that, I don't think anyone would suggest that every benefit claimant is compelled to use foodbanks, in which case you have to ask why some people can manage whilst others can't. There will, of course, be many examples of people with particular unavoidable personal circumstances that drive them to it, but can you, hand on heart, say that nobody is using them because of decisions that they have made to spend their income on things other than food? I'm not suggesting that the numbers would be large - I couldn't possibly do that - but with all due respect, I don't think that you can deny that possibility.

[Redshank]

No, Tony. I'm stating that the government of the day has to operate within the laws that Parliament has passed to collect the taxes that are due. I'm also stating that businesses will (because they are required to) operate within those same laws to reduce their tax liabilities. Individuals do the same.

To ignore the realities above is where madness lies. Increased tax rates will operate to encourage businesses to take measures to reduce their liabilities.

I was wondering how long it would be before that old chestnut was trotted out. “Tax avoidance” and “Operating within the law to avoid tax liabilities” is the biggest con of all. What we have is the government of the day employing one of the big accounting firms to draft tax legislation. The accounting firm in question then advises massive corporations on how to take advantage of tax loopholes within the legislation that they themselves have drafted! All “legal and above board” but effectively costing the country billions. Talk about gamekeeper turned poacher!

As far as relaxing tax liabilities on companies is concerned; that works up to a point. But the real way to stimulate demand, stimulate growth and create jobs is to put more money in the people’s pockets. More spending power = more demand = growth.

At 19% we now have one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the industrialised world. France and Germany for instance are up around 30%. The USA is even higher!

[millmoormagic]

If the Tories wanted to get rid of the NHS, they've had plenty of opportunities to do so since 1948. That being said, I'd like to think that one of the things that May will be able to do off the back of the strength that an increased majority will give her is to sack Hunt, who is clearly a poor custodian of the service.

We do have extensive rules and regulations governing industry and, unfortunately, perhaps, one of the most complex tax codes in the world.

The fact remains, however, that increased corporate taxes incentivises business to adopt strategies that reduce their tax liabilities. For example – and I may be wrong as I haven’t looked it up – my understanding of the Starbucks situation is that the company effectively prevented its UK based subsidiary from making a taxable profit in the UK by requiring it to pay substantial licensing feels to its Luxembourg based subsidiary for the use of intellectual property such as the Starbucks logo. In that way, the profits generated from sales in the UK could be taxed in Luxembourg. The incentive to do that was the higher rate of corporate taxes in this country compared to those in Luxembourg and, as far as I’m aware, it was entirely legal. Increased taxes will increase the use of such strategies.

Starbucks did, of course, pay wages, employment taxes, VAT, rents, business rates etc. in the UK and so the UK economy (if not it’s palate) was benefited.

There are a lot of 'facts' and figures bandied about around the subject of foodbanks and you'll have to excuse me if I express some scepticism about them when they are quoted primarily by politicians. May is clearly right to say that the reasons people use them are complex, however.

Consider this; we have a benefits system in the UK that, setting aside some of its complexities, seeks to guarantee a minimum income for everyone. Despite that, I don't think anyone would suggest that every benefit claimant is compelled to use foodbanks, in which case you have to ask why some people can manage whilst others can't. There will, of course, be many examples of people with particular unavoidable personal circumstances that drive them to it, but can you, hand on heart, say that nobody is using them because of decisions that they have made to spend their income on things other than food? I'm not suggesting that the numbers would be large - I couldn't possibly do that - but with all due respect, I don't think that you can deny that possibility.

Maybe we do have the most complex tax rules in the world, and if we do, you know who has created them, like leafs in a huge book, the more rules there are, the more loopholes the 'clever lawyers' will find, the harder to read. i'm all in agreement for much simpler tax reules and regs, fetch it on.

If you think that May, with an increased majority, will curtail the damage being done, and will sack the incompetent Hunt, then i think you're sadly mistaken, these are her ideas, she's revelling in it.

As for the Starbucks thing, among many others, like i've touched on regarding tax, too many loopholes, and, just because something is quite legal, doesn't make it morally right does it?? Just like the former PM Cameron with his off shore tax haven, quite legal, morally corrupt, in my view.

Back to the foodbank thing, there is always, always going to be people that flannel the system, human nature, and to be honest, they don't impress me either, and that needs to stop, and we do need to put a stop to those that choose the 'benefit way of life', quite agree, but difficult to attain that amount of control. All i will say is that the amounts of money overrall being cheated from the benefit system is far outweighed by the amounts of tax being dodged, so, let's cure both, the country will be in a much better place.