sign the petition

[KerrAvon]

Your attempts at fishing are plainly poor, you don't like honesty do you Kerr?

There was no fishing there. By branding anyone who is willing to argue against current Labour party policy as self interested, uncaring or even Tory you demonstrate as much bigotry and prejudice as gf. You just don't see it because you are too busy feeling worthy.

[KerrAvon]

Same old argument again Kerr.....i'll ask again,.......

"Presumably you'd accept that even if the rates were higher, they'd still be lower than ALL our competitors, therefore making it the better option nonetheless.....yes or no".

I have answered you twice already on this but perhaps I need to make it more explicit for you.

The level of taxation is one of a number of factors that a company will take into account when deciding where to operate, invest, pay tax and employ people. Amongst others will be labour costs, energy costs,rent/land costs and regulatory costs.

As raging graciously acknowledges transport costs are a particular feature of the UK economy.

Last Saturday I took my car to France by Eurotunnel. Checking in, waiting, the journey and embarking took about two hours. The fare was £90 or so. On Monday morning, I woke in Sarreguemines, France and went for a walk which took me across a bridge over the River Blies into Germany. The border is invisible - not even a welcome to Germany sign - with traffic flowing quickly and cost free across it. So that means that a company producing widgets in the West Midlands competing with a German company to supply a company in,say, Northern France is at an immediate and huge cost disadvantage.

If you don't believe me, consider this: how has manufacturing in the UK fared in the last half century or so? I presume your reflexive response will be to mention Margaret Thatcher, but the reality is different.

Competitive tax rates are one way of addressing the competitive inequality that I have described above. Your argument would hold water provided that every other factor were equal, but they aren't and your argument is flawed in consequence.

If you still choose to believe that increased costs to business have no consequences, take a look at the 70s and the widespread destruction of jobs that flowed from the uncontrolled wage inflation of the decade.

Bulgaria is still living with a hangover from 40 years of Socialist economic policies, but it certainly has the capacity to grow it's economy with time.

[KerrAvon]

Really , you think everyone who works creates wealth ?

So going by that logic the NHS would be performing at a standard we would all happily accept .

I'm currently watching a programme on tv and an 86 year old women fell and it's taken an ambulance 6 hours to reach her .

Why did Northamptonshire council totally run out of money to meet their obligations ? and why are the majority of councils also struggling to run services effectively in these barmy full employment times ?


Yeh really reducing the demands on the public sector , although Kennsington council are showing a way forward even if a significant number of residents do burn to death in their own homes .

You not familar with in work poverty , the use of foodbanks ?

Bit complex for you is it kerr ?

I spent 8 hours last week helping out at our local foodbank , my company is spending this financial year raising funds for them and we are all involved in fund raising activities and giving up our time .

50% of the users of this service are working , don't take my word for it though the guy who runs it told me .


I'll give you corporation tax alright .........





https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a6873151.html

Of course employment creates wealth.

The NHS is not funded to the level that the majority of people would want it to be. The issue on this thread is how additional funding could be raised and the consequences of the method chosen by Labour.

Companies will organise their tax affairs to reduce their liability, just as people do (I've never met anyone who say, asks their employer not to apply their personal allowance - have you?). Increasing tax rates will, of course, serve to encourage companies (and individuals) to look at other strategies to reduce their liability - the ultimate one being to leave the country, which is my point.

[KerrAvon]

Tell you what , knock yourself out


http://www.murrayandlamb.co.uk/news/...rst-offenders/


So the world of business that you appear to hold with such high esteem seems to be placing the burden on those who just about get by if they use a foodbank .

In work creates wealth and less reliant on public services ?

I wish it did for millions of people .

'The world of business' provides employment and pays tax to fund public services. Picking examples of avoidance and extrapolating it to all business would be akin to finding a story about a benefit fraudster and claiming it as proof that all benefit claimants are scroungers.

Your position is revealing however as it demonstrates a real anti- business attitude, which, I fear underlies much of the current Labour economic policy. As I have been seeking to argue, that is a counter productive approach.

[KerrAvon]

So we are the keyboard warriors bothering Kerr are we? Please read my requests from Kerr that I did not want to re-enter that debate and his persistent baiting. How have you worked out that we are the keyboard warriors. I never start political posts. How is Kerr not the keyboard warrior here??!

You've never bothered me raging.

As for me baiting you, I assume that is a reference to me asking you how many job losses you would think acceptable for certain policies? That wasn't baiting - they were genuine questions. Seemingly you really don't want to answer, despite your frequent insistence that other posters answer yours.

Do you truly believe that Labour have stumbled across a consequence free way of raising tax or is it necessary for Labour Party members to adopt a 'three wise monkey' approach to party policy these days?

On a lighter note, did you go to Jez Fest?

[millmoormagic]

There was no fishing there. By branding anyone who is willing to argue against current Labour party policy as self interested, uncaring or even Tory you demonstrate as much bigotry and prejudice as gf. You just don't see it because you are too busy feeling worthy.

You're not arguing against labour party policy, you're arguing FOR homelessness, more foodbanks, more in work poverty, more millionaires dodging tax, and you know what, that makes you self interested and uncaring even if you can't see it yersen....

[millmoormagic]

I have answered you twice already on this but perhaps I need to make it more explicit for you.

The level of taxation is one of a number of factors that a company will take into account when deciding where to operate, invest, pay tax and employ people. Amongst others will be labour costs, energy costs,rent/land costs and regulatory costs.

As raging graciously acknowledges transport costs are a particular feature of the UK economy.

Last Saturday I took my car to France by Eurotunnel. Checking in, waiting, the journey and embarking took about two hours. The fare was £90 or so. On Monday morning, I woke in Sarreguemines, France and went for a walk which took me across a bridge over the River Blies into Germany. The border is invisible - not even a welcome to Germany sign - with traffic flowing quickly and cost free across it. So that means that a company producing widgets in the West Midlands competing with a German company to supply a company in,say, Northern France is at an immediate and huge cost disadvantage.

If you don't believe me, consider this: how has manufacturing in the UK fared in the last half century or so? I presume your reflexive response will be to mention Margaret Thatcher, but the reality is different.

Competitive tax rates are one way of addressing the competitive inequality that I have described above. Your argument would hold water provided that every other factor were equal, but they aren't and your argument is flawed in consequence.

If you still choose to believe that increased costs to business have no consequences, take a look at the 70s and the widespread destruction of jobs that flowed from the uncontrolled wage inflation of the decade.

Bulgaria is still living with a hangover from 40 years of Socialist economic policies, but it certainly has the capacity to grow it's economy with time.

A simple YES or NO is all i asked, can you not do that?

Can't recall you answering anytime, you've brought this up again by wanting to argue over old ground with pup, old ground where you've got your corner and pup's had his, but you won't answer that one simple question, YES or NO?

So now the goalposts move at the whim of the lawyer, of course there's many things that affect company's choice of where they want to operate, as you say transport costs are prohibitive when exporting from the UK but i daresay much of the other stuff evens itself out wouldn't you? but that aint been the question has it, that one question you won't answer....

Yeh, Kerr, i've been all over Europe touring and enjoyed the borderless travel many times, and of course that gives the mainland an advantage, so tell me though in that case, why is it that we export 45% to the EU, must be some dodgy cheap fuel about eh...i think that might show your argument as a bit flawed don't you think...

There you go again, 70's mad, you really do need to drag yersen out of the 70's fella, and the only reason we'd end up back there is through a hard brexit pushed by many of your mates.....different times, different culture, get over it.

What's Bulgaria got to do with owt??

Finally all i'll say is that i don't want communism, i want a fair and decent society, i don't want to rip all the money off the millionaires, just for them to pay their share, i want companies to treat their workforce fairly and decently, a decent NHS and education, is that too much to ask, really?

[KerrAvon]

You're not arguing against labour party policy, you're arguing FOR homelessness, more foodbanks, more in work poverty, more millionaires dodging tax, and you know what, that makes you self interested and uncaring even if you can't see it yersen....

How am I arguing for those things, MMM? My argument is that increasing corporate tax rates makes the UK a less attractive place to do business than it is at the present time. Surely you can accept that? If you can't, what is your counter argument?

There are several companies who have openly indicated that they are actively considering leaving the UK. HSBC has been saying it for years, Airbus and BMW in the last couple of weeks. So, if a future in the UK is in the balance for huge employers and tax payers such as these (and don't forget the supply chain and support companies that rely on their business) surely you can see the risk in adding in another factor that reduces the attractiveness of the UK?

I don't see increased unemployment and reduced economic activity as a solution to homelessness or poverty.

When have I argued in favour of millionaires dodging tax and what have corporate tax rates got to do with it.

Thanks for pointing out that I'm uncaring. I guess that means that I should pack in the voluntary sessions that I do at my local Citizens Advice Bureau. I've been doing them for four**** years so they are probably sick of seeing me.

[KerrAvon]

A simple YES or NO is all i asked, can you not do that?

Can't recall you answering anytime, you've brought this up again by wanting to argue over old ground with pup, old ground where you've got your corner and pup's had his, but you won't answer that one simple question, YES or NO?

So now the goalposts move at the whim of the lawyer, of course there's many things that affect company's choice of where they want to operate, as you say transport costs are prohibitive when exporting from the UK but i daresay much of the other stuff evens itself out wouldn't you? but that aint been the question has it, that one question you won't answer....

Yeh, Kerr, i've been all over Europe touring and enjoyed the borderless travel many times, and of course that gives the mainland an advantage, so tell me though in that case, why is it that we export 45% to the EU, must be some dodgy cheap fuel about eh...i think that might show your argument as a bit flawed don't you think...

There you go again, 70's mad, you really do need to drag yersen out of the 70's fella, and the only reason we'd end up back there is through a hard brexit pushed by many of your mates.....different times, different culture, get over it.

What's Bulgaria got to do with owt??

Finally all i'll say is that i don't want communism, i want a fair and decent society, i don't want to rip all the money off the millionaires, just for them to pay their share, i want companies to treat their workforce fairly and decently, a decent NHS and education, is that too much to ask, really?

For the fourth time, the answer is no. I'm just a bit old school and like to explain why it's no. I'm sorry if that confused you.

The things that you want are what most people want irrespective of their political leanings. It's how to get there that is in issue. Labour's economically destructive policies don't do it for me.

Sorry about the Bulgaria comment. I read your post about Hungary yesterday afternoon and should have checked before posting. My memory isn't what it was (but still much better than animal's). Read Hungary for Bulgaria - another country still emerging from the hangover of Socialist economics.

[KerrAvon]

P.s. on the question of me wanting to argue over the old ground with raging, it's a strange one - he opened the argument up and then seemed to decide he didn't want it. Must be the Momentum house style - throw stones then try to run away.