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

[ragingpup]

Depending upon the nature of the business, I agree that offering good terms and condition to staff can bring significant business benefits, but I think you may have missed the primary thrust of the Guardian article, which is that UK workers deliver lower productivity because of overmanning.

I’d be surprised if any party offered the prospect of lower levels of employment in return for being put into government, but I guess we'll have to wait and see the manifestoes.

There's someting of a false dichotomy about your post. Companies can seek to increase profits by capital investment and through staff training. It's not an either/or. Whether they do so is a matter for them. Increasing corporate taxation is one way of discouraging them and eliminating the grants, subsidies and tax allowances that you take issue with in post 267 is another.

Ok - so if I run with the logic of your argument (leaving aside any further points of flaw to avoid a circular argument) are you saying that in your opinion that if we apply the logic of the article you have put forward, that it will be enough, combined with continued cuts to corporation tax but no other increases in income tax, that this will provide us with the monies needed to properly fund services and stop our growing national debt?

If so, can you back that up with any financial projections?

[ragingpup]

So you are relying upon this article amongst the various sources that you are otherwise coy about:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/62461/benef...ich-costs-more

The clue is in the headers to the paragraph from which you quote. It reads tax evasion and avoidance. They are two different things.

The most interesting question that arises, however, is where does that article mention aggressive tax avoidance as per your post 303? It doesn't, it refers to the tax gap and is clearly referring to the PCS report.

Is the long and the short of it that you’ve read the article and have misrepresented it (whether deliberately or unintentionally, I can’t say) to suit your agenda?

No I am NOT saying that. You're clearly ignoring the repeated statements that I have read multiple books and reports on tax evasion and the general consensus it appears to me is that the loss of collected revenue due to tax avoidance is in that ball park. The use of the term "aggressive tax avoidance" is a commonly used expression - google it. Why must we try and fit everything into a single quote?

Yes, I may not be that bright but I am aware of the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Legal and illegal. Both are in focus here.

[millmoormagic]

You are probably a better man than me on a multitude of levels.

When it comes to paying back into the system, you're not even out of the starting blocks. Yet you and your ilk want more, more, more.

I've said to you before: You put more back. if everything is so unfair (and I agree much of it is) why does someone as strongly opinionated as you own property. Sell up and get down to all these food banks, you speak of and help the masses.

Or better still, sell up and team with a few of your pals on here. Set up your own business become employers. It's will be so patently easy and straightforward for someone educated to HNC level. I don't why I haven't suggested it before.

Send me the business plan. Don't worry about paying corporation tax at these low levels you see in the UK. Something tells me you'll not be paying any.

PS. When it comes to paying back into the system, in my eyes we're not equal. That's why you're bleating and you want more. You don't want fairness for all. Smokescreen. Not happy with your lot.

It's sad really

You do make me chuckle at times, my only driving force in my life has been my family, nothing unusual in that i know, but profit is the last thing on my mind. I have only ever wanted to be secure, to feed my kids, to give them a holiday every year, to have a secure roof over their heads.
They're now adults, in decent work, and good human beings, i'm happy with that, i've never been overly ambitious, and i'm not knocking anyone who is. I just want this gov't to stop giving breaks to the rich, and stop bashing the poor, because if you hadn't noticed, there is an ever increasign amount of British people, in work, who are struggling to pay their mortgages, to heat their houses, to feed their kids. If you don't know that, then you're blinkered to be honest, you live in your bubble, while British people, through no fault of their own, are being hit from all sides by a gov't intent on damaging them further.

[howdydoo]

You do make me chuckle at times, my only driving force in my life has been my family, nothing unusual in that i know, but profit is the last thing on my mind. I have only ever wanted to be secure, to feed my kids, to give them a holiday every year, to have a secure roof over their heads.
They're now adults, in decent work, and good human beings, i'm happy with that, i've never been overly ambitious, and i'm not knocking anyone who is. I just want this gov't to stop giving breaks to the rich, and stop bashing the poor, because if you hadn't noticed, there is an ever increasign amount of British people, in work, who are struggling to pay their mortgages, to heat their houses, to feed their kids. If you don't know that, then you're blinkered to be honest, you live in your bubble, while British people, through no fault of their own, are being hit from all sides by a gov't intent on damaging them further.

There we have it. Never been overly ambitious and the very mention of profit has never been on your mind.

I'm glad your happy your kids have ended up decent human beings and find themselves in decent work.

Looks like an abuse of the free education, healthcare and handouts you've benefitted from, if you ask me. Seems by your own admission, you probably could have done more for them. No need though is there? Whilst you've been having quality time with them over the last 20odd years, other people have been pumping enough money back into the system to ensure your kids have been given ample opportunities in life. Here's you on here trying to take the credit for that as well. tut tut. No wonder you've never had a day off sick. Life's a breeze innit? Not a care in the world. All on a plate.

Your wife must be a diamond. All those years hiding the 'Morning Star' under the cushions every day and making sure the kids don't grow up with the same bitter outlook as Daddy.

You'd think net contributors would get some thanks in this society instead of people insisting taxation approaching and/or exceeding 70p in the £ isn't enough. Not from MMM . I've got a warm glow from helping you out anyhow.

All forms of tax avoidance needs stamping out and I suggest obscene inherited wealth could be addressed with some political driven forms of philanthropy from these people.

You sonny, can do better.

[KerrAvon]

Ok - so if I run with the logic of your argument (leaving aside any further points of flaw to avoid a circular argument) are you saying that in your opinion that if we apply the logic of the article you have put forward, that it will be enough, combined with continued cuts to corporation tax but no other increases in income tax, that this will provide us with the monies needed to properly fund services and stop our growing national debt?

If so, can you back that up with any financial projections?

How do you define the amount needed to ‘properly fund’ services? I'm not aware of any financial projections, but I'm sure you'd find some if you mooched around on the internet.

I rely more on history and common sense. If you take a look at what was happening in the UK in the first half of the last decade there was a period of government budget surplus accompanied by a historically high level of public spending. Why? Because there had been a prolonged period of growth to create a strong economy (although the extent to which that was based upon unsustainable levels of credit is debatable). The economy tanked in 2008 and we are now where we are - running a sizeable budget deficit despite significant cuts in public spending. The message is clear, but seems to be lost on Labour, which is that a strong economy is the key to creating and distributing wealth. The Labour approach to achieving 'fairness' (who said life is fair) appears to be to take wealth from one part of society and give it to another, with no thought to its creation.

The common sense bit comes from the notion that a government that is intent on creating a better life for the people it governs needs to adopt wealth creating policies. Increasing business taxes doesn't do that. It incentives those businesses to leave the country, adopt avoidance strategies, cut investment or a combination of those options.

The latest gem from the Labour camp is the notion of a 'Robin Hood' tax on the city. I can see why that will play well to the Labour faithful, but what will it do to the economy? The financial services sector is worth somewhere around £45bn a year in direct taxes. The prospect of Brexit and the possibilty of losing 'passporting' is already providing an incentive for the finance sector to switch their operations (and their tax liabilities) to Frankfurt or Paris. The prospect of being raided by Corbyn will merely add to that pressure.

[KerrAvon]

No I am NOT saying that. You're clearly ignoring the repeated statements that I have read multiple books and reports on tax evasion and the general consensus it appears to me is that the loss of collected revenue due to tax avoidance is in that ball park. The use of the term "aggressive tax avoidance" is a commonly used expression - google it. Why must we try and fit everything into a single quote?

Yes, I may not be that bright but I am aware of the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Legal and illegal. Both are in focus here.

I’m not clearly ignoring anything. I’m merely seeking details of the sources that you reply upon for your claim that we are losing what is estimated to be somewhere between £100 - £130 BILLION pounds per year through aggressive tax avoidance. Approx £14 billion is lost to our economy through deliberate tax fraud..

I asked and you initially told me ‘various sources’. I asked again and you cited “The Week - Benefit Fraud v Tax Evasion". I’ve linked to that source and it is clear that it does not even seek to provide a figure for avoidance, but is, instead, talking about the ‘tax gap’ which consists of uncollected taxes written off, evasion and avoidance.

So can we try again? You stated that there is estimated to be somewhere between £100 - £130 BILLION pounds per year through aggressive tax avoidance. You now says that there is a consensus within sources that you have researched that the avoidance figure is in that ball park. Can you please give me a link to a source that suggests a figure like that? I’m not being picky; a single one from your various sources will suffice. You made the claim. Surely you can justify it?

We are in the middle of an election campaign. I think it important that we know whether the government has been presiding over avoidance upon the scale you suggest.

Now you suggest that I am ignoring you and at various points in this thread you have commented upon people not asking your question, so can we try another question again:

Does Labour propose to end any the activities raised within your post at 267? Are they going to scrap the tax allowances that encourage businesses to invest, innovate and grow? Are they proposing to end subsidies to rail companies and impose duty on aviation fuel so as to cause fares to rise for all? Are they going to end the export credit guarantees that allow businesses to export more easily?

I think we should be told as it may well influence how some of us would vote.

[Pattylallacks2]

Take it all back after seeing Jeremy with his Millers scarf

[millmoormagic]

There we have it. Never been overly ambitious and the very mention of profit has never been on your mind.

I'm glad your happy your kids have ended up decent human beings and find themselves in decent work.

Looks like an abuse of the free education, healthcare and handouts you've benefitted from, if you ask me. Seems by your own admission, you probably could have done more for them. No need though is there? Whilst you've been having quality time with them over the last 20odd years, other people have been pumping enough money back into the system to ensure your kids have been given ample opportunities in life. Here's you on here trying to take the credit for that as well. tut tut. No wonder you've never had a day off sick. Life's a breeze innit? Not a care in the world. All on a plate.

Your wife must be a diamond. All those years hiding the 'Morning Star' under the cushions every day and making sure the kids don't grow up with the same bitter outlook as Daddy.

You'd think net contributors would get some thanks in this society instead of people insisting taxation approaching and/or exceeding 70p in the £ isn't enough. Not from MMM . I've got a warm glow from helping you out anyhow.

All forms of tax avoidance needs stamping out and I suggest obscene inherited wealth could be addressed with some political driven forms of philanthropy from these people.

You sonny, can do better.

Haha, chuckling again, for what it's worth, your capitalist system changed the free education for greed, and charged my daughter £36000 for the priveledge, absolutely fantastic system that, all those in gov't who benefitted from free education voting to put tuition fees in, well done the capitalist society, the one you wholeheartedly support.

I could've done more, much more i suppose, couldn't we all, but as i've said previously, i've paid my dues for all my working life, what have you go against that then?

You talk of me breezing through life, far from it, i've worked all hours and all shifts to get what i've got, which isn't a lot, but it's there all the same, so, what's really been put on a plate for me? the exact same thing as you, that's what, the difference is i'm grateful for it, and you're resentful of it, you cannot, just cannot stand the fact that i get the same benefit as you, because you're better than me, in your eyes...well, you're not howdy, not by a long way, you couldn't lace my boots fella.

I'm not a communist.

Me, yeh, i can do better, but i don't have an ego that's driven me to your unbelievable heights, like i've told you, i'm not envious of you, i'd be bitterly disappointed in myself if i was driven that way to be honest, but that's your choice.

[Lasterman]

Jeez this is a long thread. Don't have time to read it all. Has anyone changed anyone's mind yet?

[millmoormagic]

Jeez this is a long thread. Don't have time to read it all. Has anyone changed anyone's mind yet?

, that's not how it works mate!! though, there's been some good posts from both sides to be honest, refreshingly.