sign the petition

[Lasterman]

Amazing that in these run down areas with lots of "child poverty" that vape shops and tattoo parlour do so well.

Be fair, it can't be easy to afford a Playstation 476 AND a tattoo of some crappy song lyrics on your tit.

[WanChaiMiller]

For the same reason that I have given to MMM time and time again, which is that Corporation Tax is just one cost to business (arguably it isn't a cost, given that it is a tax on profit, but the effect is the same for the purposes of this thread). A decision about where to operate is a fine one based upon looking at a number of competing factors.

If there is an argument against the proposition that increasing the tax rate reduces the attractiveness of the UK to do business and will therefore lead to lower levels of investment then I am still waiting for someone to give it. As Grist points out, making a change to such a significant factor alters the equilibrium and will necessarily produce a reaction, with none of the possibilities being job/worker friendly.

Many German companies have a British presence, two of them, Siemens and BMW, have warned that they will re-think their presence here if Brexit increases their costs. If there are reasons to believe that they would not react in a similar fashion to increased costs imposed by a Labour government then I’m still waiting for someone to give them.

An increased Corporation Tax rate is bad for levels of employment and investment. It really is as simple as that. With that being the case, why can't a Labour supporter indicate how many job losses they consider acceptable to fund the tuition fee bribe?

All things being absolutely equal then I get a variable like Corp Tax could be a deciding factor. But all things are not equal.

For me location (like access to markets, cost of labour, available workforce, rent, rates, etc) is the prime consideration way ahead of Corp Tax.

[KerrAvon]

All things being absolutely equal then I get a variable like Corp Tax could be a deciding factor. But all things are not equal.

For me location (like access to markets, cost of labour, available workforce, rent, rates, etc) is the prime consideration way ahead of Corp Tax.

I spent I forget how many days pointing out to MMM that Corporation Tax is not the only factor. For example, in post 112, I told him: 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. I could have gone on with reasons.

As recently as post 166, I told you that: I haven't suggested that corporate tax rates are the most important factor. They are a factor and are capable of being an insignificant factor or an important one depending on the size of any change.

I don't see how I could have been any clearer.

The fact is that Labour Policy, if implemented, will impose additional costs on business through corporate tax rates, an increase to the minimum wage and, according to this thread, additional public holidays. Businesses will react. As I pointed out to you in post 200: If there is an argument against the proposition that increasing the tax rate reduces the attractiveness of the UK to do business and will therefore lead to lower levels of investment then I am still waiting for someone to give it. As Grist points out, making a change to such a significant factor alters the equilibrium and will necessarily produce a reaction, with none of the possibilities being job/worker friendly.

Whether you see other costs as being 'the prime consideration way ahead of Corp Tax.' is irrelevant. It's how businesses see any change. For some - possibly very many - the other factors at play that MMM was desperate to ignore will continue to keep them in the UK. For others the reaction will be to seek to reduce the size of their workforce or to cut costs in other ways. For some, it will be to freeze, reduce or end their presence in the UK. If anyone has an argument against that then please make it.

[WanChaiMiller]

Currently there are many companies relocation the Germany where, as I understand it, the rate of CT is 10% higher than the UK.

[gm_gm]

Currently there are many companies relocation the Germany where, as I understand it, the rate of CT is 10% higher than the UK.

But other trading costs are higher as explained above...re comment on VAT threshold being around £30k not £85k as here in UK.

you missed political stability, access to finance and regionalised incentives (see Waverley project) when choosing a country to trade from, the UK is the easier to obtain finance to grow your business

[WanChaiMiller]

Kerr.......With that being the case, why can't a Labour supporter indicate how many job losses they consider acceptable to fund the tuition fee bribe?.....

None. The money already exists in the economy. We pay it out in Student loans. Only difference is we find a different way of repaying it without it falling on the individual. Business benefits and should accept some of the responsibility.

[KerrAvon]

Kerr.......With that being the case, why can't a Labour supporter indicate how many job losses they consider acceptable to fund the tuition fee bribe?.....

None. The money already exists in the economy. We pay it out in Student loans. Only difference is we find a different way of repaying it without it falling on the individual. Business benefits and should accept some of the responsibility.

Nearly forgot this one.

Cancel your next rent or mortgage payment and when chased tell your landlord/bank that 'the money already exists in the economy' and see what happens.

Under the current system, the individuals who stand a chance of directly benefitting from a university education and who take out a student loan are required to make repayments when their earnings exceed a given threshold. The result is a very well funded university system with some of the most respected and research heavy institutions in the world.

If Labour ever have to pay out on their bribe, the burden of sending somewhere like half of kids to university will fall upon the taxpayer, whether that is corporate or private individuals. Yes, everybody (corporate and otherwise) benefits from a well educated workforce, but do the Left really want the burden of paying for university education to fall across the population - all the way down to the lowest earning of taxpayers? It's easy to make the argument when talking about, say doctors, engineers, physicists and pharmacologists, but not so easy when talking about, say graduates in Sociology, Medieval Studies or American Studies from some mickey mouse establishment.

Of course, like most things currently Labour, taking the very high cost of funding of university places back into government is likely to see a return to the 70s where university funding was so low that only a very few people were able to obtain a place and a university education became the preserve of an, often privileged, few.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Be fair, it can't be easy to afford a Playstation 476 AND a tattoo of some crappy song lyrics on your tit.

And some of them have some very long lyrics.

[WanChaiMiller]

But other trading costs are higher as explained above...re comment on VAT threshold being around £30k not £85k as here in UK.

you missed political stability, access to finance and regionalised incentives (see Waverley project) when choosing a country to trade from, the UK is the easier to obtain finance to grow your business

I was actually aiming the post at Kerr. But thank you for jumping in and reinforcing my point.

Many more factor to consider when planning where to locate a business than simply Corp Tax as he keeps saying.

You are quite right in adding political stability and access to finance or we'd all be trading out of Zimbabwe (I just didnt want to bang on and end up writing an essay).

[Lasterman]

Wonder if anyone has ever said "You know what, I think you might be right after all." following one of these?