Printable View
You can opt out of the political fund anytime you want and have the option not to contribute through your subscriptions when you first join a union .Quote:
Originally Posted by Grist_To_The_Mill
The Labour Party don't like ZHC's because they can be used as an exploitive work practice and very often are .
I have repeatedly answered your question. I think the issue is that you just don't like the answer which is 'no' for the reasons that I have set out. I have dodged nothing - I have simply disagreed with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by millmoormagic
The problem is with your insistence that we forget about the real world in which businesses operate and try to treat taxation as the only factor that influences decisions.
It isn't.
The problem can be demonstrated by your argument that:
ours is at 20%, Germany's at 30%, given that, our goods are potentially 10% cheaper, of course the extra costs of exporting those goods to Germany could be considered, that doesn't take away from the fact that we're still cheaper in terms of corporation tax.
Putting it as neutrally as I can, your argument is nonsense. The element of the price of a car that will eventually be paid (as a percentage of the profit that is made on it's sale) is tiny when compared with the cost of making it. It follows that to suggest that the fact that a countries corporate tax rate is 10% lower than the UK means that a car sold there is 'potentially 10% cheaper' makes no sense at all.
Let me try one more analogy in the hope of showing you problem with you argument: If the company that supplies your water put up iyour bill by 10%, it would not be correct to say that your household bills have gone up by 10% as the increase applies to only a proportion of those bills. The same applies to the situation you describe: the Corporation Tax element of the price of an item - the element of that price that will give to the taxman as a percentage of any profit made - will almost always be dwarfed by other costs.
We run a huge and ever increasing trade deficit on goods with the EU, that is only partly offset by a surplus on services. In part that is down to the geographical handicap.
It's interesting that you mention foreign ownership of companies. It raises a point that I have had in mind, but didn't raise for fear of confusing you even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by millmoormagic
The share price of a company is based upon a number of factors, one of the most important of which is it's ability to pay dividends. If the rate of Corporation Tax is raised, it means that a larger proportion of a company's profit goes to the taxman and a lower proportion to the shareholders. The consequence is that the business becomes less attractive to investors, which in turn means it's share price falls.
In other words, the company becomes cheaper to potential buyers.
So then you look at companies like Astrazeneca. A major player and tax payer in the UK, but not in world terms, AZ has been stalked for years by the American company, Pfizer. Drop the AZ share price low enough through increased taxation and a bid to buy it would be almost inevitable.
No government likes large numbers of low skilled low paid workers as they are likely to be eligible for in work benefits and generate very little tax revenue. Practising manufacturing non-friendly policies such as Labour's Corporation Tax policy increases the proportion of such workers within an economy by driving out high end manufacturers leaving just work that pays to be close to it's market such as animal's warehouse work.
So the company grows 4 fold but the economy didn’t benefit?Quote:
Originally Posted by animallittle3
What about all the additional employees earning a wage and spending money in their local area?
What about the tax and national insurance paid by the additional employees?
What about the additional tax paid by the company? Can’t comment on corporation tax as I don’t know relevant profits or rates but the company also paid employers NI on the additional employees, class 1A on any benefits in kind.
The shareholders presumably paid themselves more which means they paid more tax.
If you start increasing corporation tax rates in the current economic climate you will see a cut in investment along with many, many smes going bust.
It is the thousands of smes up and down the country that contribute most of the tax take and things are tough out there.
We will turnover £17m this year and make £600k pre tax profit. At 20% that leaves us £480k in retained earnings which is used for working capital and future investment. £480k for a company our size and employees 130 people is a pittance.
Last year, we used our retained earnings to open a branch in the North East. We have employeed 15 people.
We are looking in the future to open branches in Scotland and the South West. If we haven’t got the working capital and retained earnings then we won’t be doing so.
In our industry, 23 companies that have recently filed their accounts are showing a loss. The CT rates don’t effect these but many more have seen reduced profits. An increase in CT would have a further damaging effect on these companies.
There are 5 multinationals in our industry with turnover around £200m per year. I used to work for one. Increase CT rates and they would simply shift profits abroad which is easily done by increasing the price of the product from the factory. I have seen them do it. I have also seen them shift profits to the UK by reducing the cost of the product from the factory.
Any increase in CT rates wouldn’t increase the UK tax paid by these companies but it would harm us.
Oh dear , a champion of the trickle down theory I see .Quote:
Originally Posted by one_a_day
It doesn't work , plain and simple because the wealth controller's kick nothing down , the system is set up for them to keep it , no trade unions to contend with and offshore tax avoidance schemes to hide the wealth to name but two examples .
Don't take my word for it even the king of capitalism agrees .
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/warr...economics.html
MMM confused?
I’m not having that.
Where’s the evidence?
No pointing to the 4543 examples you can find on here either.
But that isn’t what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by animallittle3
You stated that the economy didn’t benefit from the company growing. I’ve told you how the economy did benefit.
You basically wanted to benefit personally from the company doing well which is understandable and a good employer would indeed look after his staff.
Simple physics isn't it?
If a force is applied to a body that body will move to a position of equilibrium to remove the force or constraint on it.
Basically the same with taxation and other constraints. Companies will move or reorganize to get the best position.
Exactly so. I had given some thought to introducing the concept of equilibrium into the discussion, but feared that it would cause chaos in certain quarters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grist_To_The_Mill