sign the petition

[KerrAvon]

@ raging.

Blimey. If word count mattered this argument would have been over a long time ago.

Firstly you may wish to check where I claimed that reducing the Corporation Tax rate would necessarily increase the tax take. I haven't, so it seems a little harsh that you demand that I produce evidence of the same. In reality it is a continuum. A 0% tax rate would have companies flooding into the UK but no tax take. If the tax rate was put at 100%, you'd receive money only for so long as it took for businesses to close down.

It is impossible to conclusively demonstrate that any particular model produced a particular effect because economies are so complex making it necessary to have two identical economies and do a in one b in another to be certain of the consequences of both.

What it is possible to do is see what happened to the UK under the last Labour government that ran a significant tax and spend strategy in the 70s and what has happened since in the economy where you have the JRF report linked to by MMM, which confirmed the progress that was made at reducing poverty in the UK until the 2008 crash and the austerity that followed.

And despite the post 2008 malaise enough jobs have been created in the UK to effectively deliver full employment despite the continued influx of UK migrants.


You are wrong to suggest that it is a certainty that raising corporation tax X amount would raise X amount for tax revenues. It isn't a fact (or a FACT as you put it for some reason), because business will respond. They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to do so.

Is their evidence that companies take tax rates into account when deciding how to operate? Of course there is. Take Starbucks (if you like fairly dull coffee). They used a licensing arrangement to effectively export the profit on their UK operation to the Netherlands in order to take advantage of lower tax rates. That's one way of responding. Another way to do so is to quit the country. Is there evidence that companies would at the very least consider doing so. Yes - in recent weeks we've had companies queuing up to warn of the consequences to their UK operations if Brexit imposes additional costs upon them. There is no reason to suppose that they would react differently to additional costs imposed upon them by a Labour government.

Strangely, despite proclaiming your fact (or FACT) you then go on to concede
I'm not trying to hide that it gives birth to uncertainty about how businesses respond, and this has to be weighed up in the decision a government will have to weigh up. I don't claim to have evidence that NO jobs would be affected by such a raise, which suggests that your fact isn't a fact after all.

Your concession leads to two questions:

1.What changed to move you to uncertainty from your earlier confident assertion (of fact?) that the Labour tax plans would lead only to (as yet undefined) changes to operations falling short of quitting the country?

2. Given that you now accept the possibility of job losses, how many would you consider acceptable for the tuition fee bribe?

[ragingpup]

@ raging.

Blimey. If word count mattered this argument would have been over a long time ago.

Firstly you may wish to check where I claimed that reducing the Corporation Tax rate would necessarily increase the tax take. I haven't, so it seems a little harsh that you demand that I produce evidence of the same. In reality it is a continuum. A 0% tax rate would have companies flooding into the UK but no tax take. If the tax rate was put at 100%, you'd receive money only for so long as it took for businesses to close down.

It is impossible to conclusively demonstrate that any particular model produced a particular effect because economies are so complex making it necessary to have two identical economies and do a in one b in another to be certain of the consequences of both.

What it is possible to do is see what happened to the UK under the last Labour government that ran a significant tax and spend strategy in the 70s and what has happened since in the economy where you have the JRF report linked to by MMM, which confirmed the progress that was made at reducing poverty in the UK until the 2008 crash and the austerity that followed.

And despite the post 2008 malaise enough jobs have been created in the UK to effectively deliver full employment despite the continued influx of UK migrants.


You are wrong to suggest that it is a certainty that raising corporation tax X amount would raise X amount for tax revenues. It isn't a fact (or a FACT as you put it for some reason), because business will respond. They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to do so.

Is their evidence that companies take tax rates into account when deciding how to operate? Of course there is. Take Starbucks (if you like fairly dull coffee). They used a licensing arrangement to effectively export the profit on their UK operation to the Netherlands in order to take advantage of lower tax rates. That's one way of responding. Another way to do so is to quit the country. Is there evidence that companies would at the very least consider doing so. Yes - in recent weeks we've had companies queuing up to warn of the consequences to their UK operations if Brexit imposes additional costs upon them. There is no reason to suppose that they would react differently to additional costs imposed upon them by a Labour government.

Strangely, despite proclaiming your fact (or FACT) you then go on to concede
I'm not trying to hide that it gives birth to uncertainty about how businesses respond, and this has to be weighed up in the decision a government will have to weigh up. I don't claim to have evidence that NO jobs would be affected by such a raise, which suggests that your fact isn't a fact after all.

Your concession leads to two questions:

1.What changed to move you to uncertainty from your earlier confident assertion (of fact?) that the Labour tax plans would lead only to (as yet undefined) changes to operations falling short of quitting the country?

2. Given that you now accept the possibility of job losses, how many would you consider acceptable for the tuition fee bribe?

1. Usual lawyer word twisting. The fact I was referring to was the actual amount that a tax cut costs the public purse if there are no behavioural responses. E.f. The IFS stated that the cutting of the various rates of corporation tax since 2010 costs us at least £16.5 billion a year. And as I clearly said in my very next sentence this doesn’t take into account behavioural responses. But it is a solid, factual amount, X – Y that can be calculated and presented as a top line amount before you look into what gains you could make by subsequent benefits to the economy. Surely we should be looking at what we are getting in return for this in related increased revenues for public services. Surely, in return, there should be better proof of benefits than what you are providing, which are pretty much faith based.

So now you are distancing yourself from my whole point, everything I have ever typed in argument with you, that cutting corporation tax appears to be costing us too much in what we lose from the public purse, that although there are economic gains (as posted by you and others on here, which I accept) it does not appear to compensate for the £16.5 billion it costs us in services. It seems bewildering that although this has been the whole basis for my argument with you, you now appear to not notice that this was my point. Oh dear…

As I said to you when I was unsuccessfully trying to avoid this argument with you again, there is no real point debating it any more than we did do months ago as we both clearly have our points, we both have evidence for our points and as you now say it is impossible to say whether one model produces particular effects. However, if you’re going to promote so passionately an economic stance that is costing us £16.5 billion per year (before behavioural responses) then it is not unreasonable to expect that there would be greater evidence of that costs being recovered via the benefits that businesses are getting from it? It’s costing us a hell of a lot for what at the end of a day is your very own little economic faith….

2. I would accept approximately 2,113 job losses in return for an increase in corporation tax that would offset the manifesto policy on student. By the same ridiculous line of questioning, how many public service jobs would you consider acceptable to pay for a 1% cut in corporation tax?


Separately to the You refer to the JRF report backing up your views that the economy has improved poverty in recent years. Is this the same report that in a subsequent press release stated that:

• 400,000 more children are living in poverty than in 2012

• 300,000 more pensioners are living in absolute poverty than in 2012

• “Very little progress has been made in reducing poverty among working age adults”

Campbell Robb, chief executive of the independent Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said:

“These worrying figures suggest that we are at a turning point in our fight against poverty. Political choices, wage stagnation and economic uncertainty mean that hundreds of thousands more people are now struggling to make ends meet. This is a very real warning sign that our hard-fought progress is in peril.

“Action to tackle child and pensioner poverty has provided millions of families with better living standards and financial security. However, record employment is not leading to lower poverty, changes to benefits and tax credits are reducing incomes and crippling costs are squeezing budgets to breaking point.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/press/uk-pove...-turning-point

Trashed by your own source. Well done lad, well done.

[KerrAvon]

1. Usual lawyer word twisting. The fact I was referring to was the actual amount that a tax cut costs the public purse if there are no behavioural responses. E.f. The IFS stated that the cutting of the various rates of corporation tax since 2010 costs us at least £16.5 billion a year. And as I clearly said in my very next sentence this doesn’t take into account behavioural responses. But it is a solid, factual amount, X – Y that can be calculated and presented as a top line amount before you look into what gains you could make by subsequent benefits to the economy. Surely we should be looking at what we are getting in return for this in related increased revenues for public services. Surely, in return, there should be better proof of benefits than what you are providing, which are pretty much faith based.

So now you are distancing yourself from my whole point, everything I have ever typed in argument with you, that cutting corporation tax appears to be costing us too much in what we lose from the public purse, that although there are economic gains (as posted by you and others on here, which I accept) it does not appear to compensate for the £16.5 billion it costs us in services. It seems bewildering that although this has been the whole basis for my argument with you, you now appear to not notice that this was my point. Oh dear…

As I said to you when I was unsuccessfully trying to avoid this argument with you again, there is no real point debating it any more than we did do months ago as we both clearly have our points, we both have evidence for our points and as you now say it is impossible to say whether one model produces particular effects. However, if you’re going to promote so passionately an economic stance that is costing us £16.5 billion per year (before behavioural responses) then it is not unreasonable to expect that there would be greater evidence of that costs being recovered via the benefits that businesses are getting from it? It’s costing us a hell of a lot for what at the end of a day is your very own little economic faith….

2. I would accept approximately 2,113 job losses in return for an increase in corporation tax that would offset the manifesto policy on student. By the same ridiculous line of questioning, how many public service jobs would you consider acceptable to pay for a 1% cut in corporation tax?


Separately to the You refer to the JRF report backing up your views that the economy has improved poverty in recent years. Is this the same report that in a subsequent press release stated that:

• 400,000 more children are living in poverty than in 2012

• 300,000 more pensioners are living in absolute poverty than in 2012

• “Very little progress has been made in reducing poverty among working age adults”

Campbell Robb, chief executive of the independent Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said:

“These worrying figures suggest that we are at a turning point in our fight against poverty. Political choices, wage stagnation and economic uncertainty mean that hundreds of thousands more people are now struggling to make ends meet. This is a very real warning sign that our hard-fought progress is in peril.

“Action to tackle child and pensioner poverty has provided millions of families with better living standards and financial security. However, record employment is not leading to lower poverty, changes to benefits and tax credits are reducing incomes and crippling costs are squeezing budgets to breaking point.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/press/uk-pove...-turning-point

Trashed by your own source. Well done lad, well done.

I think you may be getting confused. You claim with my 'The fact I was referring to was the actual amount that a tax cut costs the public purse if there are no behavioural responses.' whereas what you actually said back in post 151 was 'The one certainty is that by raising corporation tax X amount would raise X amount for tax revenues, that is a FACT. How did your FACT about raising Corporation Tax become one about reducing it? I'm fascinated. Are you sure that you know what you meant?

When you have worked out whether the fact that you were talking about related to cutting or raising tax do let me know, but I will tell you in advance that it is not as you claim that the net effect of a tax change is a a solid, factual amount, X – Y that can be calculated. Even taking into account behavioural responses and calling that Y it is only ever possible to estimate both X and Y (with Y being particularly hard to estimate with any accuracy) so why it may be a factual amount, it can only ever be estimated.

You are also wrong when you say that the Corporation Tax cuts cost us £16.5 billion in services. In making that claim you ignore the behavioural changes that you acknowledge exist and also ignore the fact (or FACT) that the country is running a budget deficit and so rather than being a loss to public services the best case you could make is that the deficit was somewhere less than £16.5bn p.a. than it would have been.

I see that you are quoting the IFS on Corporation Tax. You miss out the observations that:

In the same way that we would expect rate cuts to be less costly in the medium to long run because lower rates boost investment, we would expect rate increases to be more expensive because they reduce investment which, over time, would translate into the UK having a smaller capital stock.

You miss out that despite now having a low headline rate:

Compared with other countries, the UK has a much less competitive tax base, largely due to a particularly ungenerous set of capital allowances.

You also miss out:

Under current plans, corporation tax receipts are set to form a smaller, and possibly decreasing, proportion of receipts in the future. This is not necessarily a concern. It has long been recognised that corporate income taxes can distort incentives in a number of harmful ways, and they are thought to have a particularly damaging effect on economic growth. Corporate tax is top of an OECD ranking of the most damaging types of tax.

Perhaps most importantly for your argument, you miss out the obvious:

Corporation tax is ultimately paid by people - through reduced pension and savings growth, job losses, lower wages and higher prices.

To be fair, it's not clear whether it is you that is selectively quoting the IFS or whether you just pulled the headline figure from a dodgy Labour Party press release, but either way, selective quoting is a dangerous game.

Here's the IFS on Corporation Tax: https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9207

You would accept approximately 2,113 job losses in return for an increase in corporation tax that would offset the manifesto policy on student? By 'student', I assume you mean the Tuition Fee bribe? I suspect you are not taking the risk of job losses seriously (perhaps working on the basis that you are in public service and so won't be affected - I'm alright, Jez). Come on, give a serious figure -you support the bribe so be clear about what consequences you are willing to accept for it - 2,113 would probably represent the losses from a tiny part of a supply chain if, say, Siemens decided to quit the country or Pfizer got it's hands on Astrazeneca and stripped it.

I think the country has fewer public servants than it is desirable for it have over the longer term, which is why I support growth friendly policies rather than the destructive, short termist, sound bite friendly, anti-growth policies that Labour are offering. That's kind of the point of my involvement in this thread.

How am I trashed by my own source when it says exactly what I said it did? I think you may be confused again. I said that the report confirmed the progress that had been made in reducing poverty in this country, which progress only faltered after the financial crisis of 2008 and the aftermath thereof, which is what it does say. We are dealing with the consequences of a profound shock to the world economy, coming to terms with the emergence of several powerful economic competitors and, latterly, dealing with the uncertainty surrounding Brexit. Of course times are difficult. In quoting JRF you are, however, once again, selectively quoting and miss out passages such as: Over the last 20 years the UK has seen very significant falls in poverty among children and pensioners , which begs the question that I ask is why would you want to turn your back on the economic strategies that have delivered that and return to the 'tax, spend, cover your eyes and ignore reality' policies of the 70s.

I like the JRF very much, but is important not forget their agenda when reading their output. They also use 'relative poverty' as measure of poverty, which produces the absurd outcome that doubling the income of everyone in the country would have no effect on poverty rates.

[millmoormagic]

Kerr, please stop including other costs, the other costs arent included in this argument,what don't you get about that, you're picking figures out of thin air trying to justify a false position.....

Please take into account the cost of corporation tax, for each dealer, one in the UK and one in Germany, their costs are in line with what the corporation tax rate is, so for example the German dealer will be 10% dearer, the UK raises their corporation tax 5%, this means that it is still cheaper by 5% than the German dealer, regardless of other costs, because corporation tax is already included in all those costs...or you could just do it like this....

Take all costs out of the equation, here's the only equation that matters in this argument;

So, let's take Germany as our example, the UK has a corporation tax of 20%, if Corbyn gets in power we raise that to 25%....Germany's corporation tax rate is running at 30%...

So, we've gone from having a tax at a rate of 10% lower to one of 5% lower...so any companies will obviously be LESS attracted, but will still be better off here.

This question is purely about corporation tax, get with the programme eh....

I see you have mentioned Osborne and put him up as a shining light of economics, please tell me how much the national debt has risen under his tenure, while we're at it, the London Standard has just released it's figures and has lost £10 million since he took over as editor, yep, he's got his finger on the pulse that lad.

[millmoormagic]

Pup, i think you've hit the nail on the head, something i touched on in an earlier post on this thread, he can't stand losing an argument, so continues his waffle and bluster, his continued attempts at trying to convince me of an obvious flaw in his argument kind of shows him up to be honest, it really does.

[rolymiller]

I will try to clear it up. Of course, you will try to do best for your kids and family. I do the best I can. The point I am making is that if you are in a privileged position of having wealth you should still think of those less fortunate than yourself eg be willing to pay more taxes etc to help homeless people, fund the national health system etc. As my old mum used to say-quoting her again- dont forget where you came from. In other words some people won't have had the lucky breaks you have for many, many reasons. I am not suggesting that you send money to your old school mates who didn't do so well as you or put yourself on the bread line instead I am trying to suggest that you support others worse off than yourself through the ballot box. I do think there should be a limit to how wealthy any human being can be and I am sure you sure not near that limit. You may have done well for yourself and maybe you think you deserve your wealth which is fair enough but to say anyone can achieve what you have is not true in my opinion no matter how hard someone tries with the hand they have been dealt.

Suppose what I am basically saying is that we should ALL be more altruistic and less materialistic. Its more to do with values rather than wealth.

[Lasterman]

I will try to clear it up. Of course, you will try to do best for your kids and family. I do the best I can. The point I am making is that if you are in a privileged position of having wealth you should still think of those less fortunate than yourself eg be willing to pay more taxes etc to help homeless people, fund the national health system etc. As my old mum used to say-quoting her again- dont forget where you came from. In other words some people won't have had the lucky breaks you have for many, many reasons. I am not suggesting that you send money to your old school mates who didn't do so well as you or put yourself on the bread line instead I am trying to suggest that you support others worse off than yourself through the ballot box. I do think there should be a limit to how wealthy any human being can be and I am sure you sure not near that limit. You may have done well for yourself and maybe you think you deserve your wealth which is fair enough but to say anyone can achieve what you have is not true in my opinion no matter how hard someone tries with the hand they have been dealt.

Suppose what I am basically saying is that we should ALL be more altruistic and less materialistic. Its more to do with values rather than wealth.

I don't disagree. It's difficult to respond without appearing to seem like you're looking for some sort of good citizen award, but I don't think I have anything to reproach myself for with regard to my contribution to the state coffers or the assistance I've given to unconnected and unrelated people who are in need of help. The interesting thing is that I wouldn't have been able to do any of that if I hadn't made efforts to move forward...perhaps behaviour you might interpret as indulging in greed?

[rolymiller]

I think you can be relatively wealthy and care about others. Likewise, I think if you are not wealthyyou should still think of others. It would be very difficult to make everybody exactly equal. Personally, I think people should be paid according to how useful they are to a smooth and fair running of society. So footballers/ pop stars / film stars etc would be not as well paid as nurses, doctors, care assistants, teachers etc. You could also add dangerous jobs as well to the list of those who should be more highly paid. Not saying you shouldnt have sportsmen/ pop stars etc. There would still be a place in society for them.

I still strongly believe that wherever there is inequality and unfairness in the world it is a recipe for conflict. The world is an overcrowded place with everyone competing for resources whatever they may be. If we want the human race to survive much longer we need to sort some of these problems: do our bit.

[KerrAvon]

Kerr, please stop including other costs, the other costs arent included in this argument,what don't you get about that, you're picking figures out of thin air trying to justify a false position.....

Please take into account the cost of corporation tax, for each dealer, one in the UK and one in Germany, their costs are in line with what the corporation tax rate is, so for example the German dealer will be 10% dearer, the UK raises their corporation tax 5%, this means that it is still cheaper by 5% than the German dealer, regardless of other costs, because corporation tax is already included in all those costs...or you could just do it like this....

Take all costs out of the equation, here's the only equation that matters in this argument;

So, let's take Germany as our example, the UK has a corporation tax of 20%, if Corbyn gets in power we raise that to 25%....Germany's corporation tax rate is running at 30%...

So, we've gone from having a tax at a rate of 10% lower to one of 5% lower...so any companies will obviously be LESS attracted, but will still be better off here.

This question is purely about corporation tax, get with the programme eh....

I see you have mentioned Osborne and put him up as a shining light of economics, please tell me how much the national debt has risen under his tenure, while we're at it, the London Standard has just released it's figures and has lost £10 million since he took over as editor, yep, he's got his finger on the pulse that lad.

You do realise that the car buying thing is an analogy don't you? I used it to try to explain how a number of factors play into the making of a decision in a business or otherwise.

It would be ridiculous to take other costs out of the equation, because that is not how decisions are made. Or maybe that is how you do make decisions and you'd buy the more expensive car, because the paint element of the total price.

Widget man can't take other costs out of the equation, because he is running a business. He can't decide to forget that, say, the English Channel, means that he has to pay far more than his German rival in transport costs when selling into Europe (Ireland excepted).

I can't recall if you are a betting person, but I believe there is a concept called handicapping where some horses have to carry additional weight. Well, the UK is handicapped by it's location.

P.s. If you decided to buy you car in Germany, you'd pay foreign exchange costs and have to pay to get it back to the UK, which is kind of part of the point I'm making.

P.p.s. You didn't answer my question: which approach is more job creation friendly - upping the minimum wage and reducing corporation tax or upping them both?

[millmoormagic]

You do realise that the car buying thing is an analogy don't you? I used it to try to explain how a number of factors play into the making of a decision in a business or otherwise.

It would be ridiculous to take other costs out of the equation, because that is not how decisions are made. Or maybe that is how you do make decisions and you'd buy the more expensive car, because the paint element of the total price.

Widget man can't take other costs out of the equation, because he is running a business. He can't decide to forget that, say, the English Channel, means that he has to pay far more than his German rival in transport costs when selling into Europe (Ireland excepted).

I can't recall if you are a betting person, but I believe there is a concept called handicapping where some horses have to carry additional weight. Well, the UK is handicapped by it's location.

P.s. If you decided to buy you car in Germany, you'd pay foreign exchange costs and have to pay to get it back to the UK, which is kind of part of the point I'm making.

P.p.s. You didn't answer my question: which approach is more job creation friendly - upping the minimum wage and reducing corporation tax or upping them both?

And you havent answered mine, you've just dodged again, and of course i realise the car dealer thing was an analogy, but once again you're playing the lawyer, moving the goalposts to suit your argument and try and dilute mine, leave your job at home and try and look at it like a normal person would instead of trying to find an angle that suits you.

We're talking about corporation tax arent we, 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. We export 50% to the EU, in your analogy i really wonder how on earth we manage to do that given those companies must, by your words, be loss making, it's not that hard Kerr, stop trying to flannel and squirm.