The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[DungBeetle]

http://www.pwc.ie/media-centre/press-release/2015/2015-pwc-ireland-thumbs-up-for-fdi.html

"An overwhelming majority (92%) of multinational CEOs confirmed that their investment in Ireland is a success..........The retention of our 12.5% corporate tax rate remains very important with over half (55%) saying this is a critical factor"

the ability to access a highly skilled workforce - noted by over three quarters of respondents (69%) - is the most important factor critical to increasing and maintaining this investment

 well over half (61%) saying maintaining our cost competitiveness, including wages and rents, is vital for winning FDI

So nowhere near the most important.

Also how much of Ireland's investment is shell organisations sucking the goodness from other parts of Europe.  Obviously low tax is top priority for those leeches.

An excellent 180 degree turn sir.  Gone from low tax being a fantasy/nonsense to "well it's only 55% of them and other things are more important."  Well played.

Tip:  If you didn't use "fantasy/nonsense" about things you don't agree with that clearly aren't "fantasy/nonsense" you might get a more constructive debate.

What?

The argument that business will leave/not invest if they have to pay their fair share in tax is indeed fantasy nonsense.  The USA has 39% corporation tax ffs.

As "evidence" you produced a survey that presumably had a number of choices to be picked in order of importance. And tax wasn't the most important.  When I point this out, you say that I have changed tune?

Business primarily requires skills, resources, infrastructure and stability.  These cost money.  Multinationals do their best to avoid paying their share and insufficient effort has been made to bring them to book.

On the one hand we have 55 percent of CEOs saying corporation tax rates are critical to their inward investment in Ireland.  On the other hand we have a bloke on the internet declaring it to be "fantasy nonsense".  Take your pick. 

[doubleup]

http://www.pwc.ie/media-centre/press-release/2015/2015-pwc-ireland-thumbs-up-for-fdi.html

"An overwhelming majority (92%) of multinational CEOs confirmed that their investment in Ireland is a success..........The retention of our 12.5% corporate tax rate remains very important with over half (55%) saying this is a critical factor"

the ability to access a highly skilled workforce - noted by over three quarters of respondents (69%) - is the most important factor critical to increasing and maintaining this investment

 well over half (61%) saying maintaining our cost competitiveness, including wages and rents, is vital for winning FDI

So nowhere near the most important.

Also how much of Ireland's investment is shell organisations sucking the goodness from other parts of Europe.  Obviously low tax is top priority for those leeches.

An excellent 180 degree turn sir.  Gone from low tax being a fantasy/nonsense to "well it's only 55% of them and other things are more important."  Well played.

Tip:  If you didn't use "fantasy/nonsense" about things you don't agree with that clearly aren't "fantasy/nonsense" you might get a more constructive debate.

What?

The argument that business will leave/not invest if they have to pay their fair share in tax is indeed fantasy nonsense.  The USA has 39% corporation tax ffs.

As "evidence" you produced a survey that presumably had a number of choices to be picked in order of importance. And tax wasn't the most important.  When I point this out, you say that I have changed tune?

Business primarily requires skills, resources, infrastructure and stability.  These cost money.  Multinationals do their best to avoid paying their share and insufficient effort has been made to bring them to book.

On the one hand we have 55 percent of CEOs saying corporation tax rates are critical to their inward investment in Ireland.  On the other hand we have a bloke on the internet declaring it to be "fantasy nonsense".  Take your pick. 

They were answering a survey with set questions and frankly the fact that nearly half (in a country that goes out of its way to accommodate tax dodging) don't think that the tax rate is critical completely undermines your argument.

[DungBeetle]

If you think a majority of CEOs saying that tax rate is critical to investment undermines my argument that you are wrong to say that tax rates are irrelevant to corporate behaviour then I don't really see how we can have any meaningful debate.

[doubleup]

If you think a majority of CEOs saying that tax rate is critical to investment undermines my argument that you are wrong to say that tax rates are irrelevant to corporate behaviour then I don't really see how we can have any meaningful debate.

You haven't at any time engaged in debate.  You maintain that corporate tax rates are the most important factor in business investment, but are unable to provide any proof of this assertion, you simply keep repeating it and referring to a survey that doesn't even fully support your argument.

Why is Switzerland not the industrial hub of Europe with a tax rate of 8.5%?

Why is the USA not a wasteland with a corporate tax rate of 39%?

[Jon MW]

...
Business primarily requires skills, resources, infrastructure and stability.  These cost money.  Multinationals do their best to avoid paying their share and insufficient effort has been made to bring them to book.

I've noticed there tends to be a tendency to talk about multinationals in the same way that some people talk about 'the rich' - i.e. that it involves a single entity.

There are a lot of multinational companies (just as 'the rich' involve a lot of separate individuals), it's easy to find specific examples of some corporations who make a sustained effort to avoid paying for their fair share - but is there evidence to show that it is a trait shared by all (or most) of them?

Also - it's not just multinationals that pay corporation tax, but that seems to be what the debate has become on here. Isn't it possible that even if the corporation tax cut is a bad thing to give away to the multinationals, it could be a good thing to help and stimulate the SME's - and that the boost to the economy from them is going to counteract any loss from the larger corporations (who "all" avoid paying it anyway apparently )

[doubleup]

...
Business primarily requires skills, resources, infrastructure and stability.  These cost money.  Multinationals do their best to avoid paying their share and insufficient effort has been made to bring them to book.

I've noticed there tends to be a tendency to talk about multinationals in the same way that some people talk about 'the rich' - i.e. that it involves a single entity.

There are a lot of multinational companies (just as 'the rich' involve a lot of separate individuals), it's easy to find specific examples of some corporations who make a sustained effort to avoid paying for their fair share - but is there evidence to show that it is a trait shared by all (or most) of them?

Also - it's not just multinationals that pay corporation tax, but that seems to be what the debate has become on here. Isn't it possible that even if the corporation tax cut is a bad thing to give away to the multinationals, it could be a good thing to help and stimulate the SME's - and that the boost to the economy from them is going to counteract any loss from the larger corporations (who "all" avoid paying it anyway apparently )

SMEs are a different issue as I said in my first post in the subject.

Large companies using complex structures to avoid paying their fair share are actually causing the tax burden as a whole on small businesses (including their owners) to be higher than it need be, but Dung Beetle apparently believes that they should be charged less in the hope that they might stop avoiding it.

 

[PokerBroker]

...
Business primarily requires skills, resources, infrastructure and stability.  These cost money.  Multinationals do their best to avoid paying their share and insufficient effort has been made to bring them to book.

I've noticed there tends to be a tendency to talk about multinationals in the same way that some people talk about 'the rich' - i.e. that it involves a single entity.

There are a lot of multinational companies (just as 'the rich' involve a lot of separate individuals), it's easy to find specific examples of some corporations who make a sustained effort to avoid paying for their fair share - but is there evidence to show that it is a trait shared by all (or most) of them?

Also - it's not just multinationals that pay corporation tax, but that seems to be what the debate has become on here. Isn't it possible that even if the corporation tax cut is a bad thing to give away to the multinationals, it could be a good thing to help and stimulate the SME's - and that the boost to the economy from them is going to counteract any loss from the larger corporations (who "all" avoid paying it anyway apparently )

There has to be another way?  Why not increase theshholds before paying corporation tax, doesn't that help the SME's more directly?

[DungBeetle]

If you think a majority of CEOs saying that tax rate is critical to investment undermines my argument that you are wrong to say that tax rates are irrelevant to corporate behaviour then I don't really see how we can have any meaningful debate.

You haven't at any time engaged in debate.  You maintain that corporate tax rates are the most important factor in business investment, but are unable to provide any proof of this assertion, you simply keep repeating it and referring to a survey that doesn't even fully support your argument.

Why is Switzerland not the industrial hub of Europe with a tax rate of 8.5%?

Why is the USA not a wasteland with a corporate tax rate of 39%?

Firstly I've never said tax is the most important factor.  I've said that it is one of a number of factors alongside markets, regulation and workforce.  Secondly I've given real life examples where behaviour has changed (Irish financial services and the bookmaking industry).  Thirdly I've given the opinion that since corporation tax only accounts for 10 percent of revenue then cutting it is likely better for our tax take as a whole.  

And then there is your side of the debate which is you just saying it is nonsense with little reference to anything except your own opinion.

[DungBeetle]

...
Business primarily requires skills, resources, infrastructure and stability.  These cost money.  Multinationals do their best to avoid paying their share and insufficient effort has been made to bring them to book.

I've noticed there tends to be a tendency to talk about multinationals in the same way that some people talk about 'the rich' - i.e. that it involves a single entity.

There are a lot of multinational companies (just as 'the rich' involve a lot of separate individuals), it's easy to find specific examples of some corporations who make a sustained effort to avoid paying for their fair share - but is there evidence to show that it is a trait shared by all (or most) of them?

Also - it's not just multinationals that pay corporation tax, but that seems to be what the debate has become on here. Isn't it possible that even if the corporation tax cut is a bad thing to give away to the multinationals, it could be a good thing to help and stimulate the SME's - and that the boost to the economy from them is going to counteract any loss from the larger corporations (who "all" avoid paying it anyway apparently )

SMEs are a different issue as I said in my first post in the subject.

Large companies using complex structures to avoid paying their fair share are actually causing the tax burden as a whole on small businesses (including their owners) to be higher than it need be, but Dung Beetle apparently believes that they should be charged less in the hope that they might stop avoiding it.
 

I think they'll always look to minimise however low you put the rate, but my hope is that the lower tax burden will encourage them to use the UK for various subsidiaries whereas the might pick another country.

[DungBeetle]

...
Business primarily requires skills, resources, infrastructure and stability.  These cost money.  Multinationals do their best to avoid paying their share and insufficient effort has been made to bring them to book.

I've noticed there tends to be a tendency to talk about multinationals in the same way that some people talk about 'the rich' - i.e. that it involves a single entity.

There are a lot of multinational companies (just as 'the rich' involve a lot of separate individuals), it's easy to find specific examples of some corporations who make a sustained effort to avoid paying for their fair share - but is there evidence to show that it is a trait shared by all (or most) of them?

Also - it's not just multinationals that pay corporation tax, but that seems to be what the debate has become on here. Isn't it possible that even if the corporation tax cut is a bad thing to give away to the multinationals, it could be a good thing to help and stimulate the SME's - and that the boost to the economy from them is going to counteract any loss from the larger corporations (who "all" avoid paying it anyway apparently )

There has to be another way?  Why not increase theshholds before paying corporation tax, doesn't that help the SME's more directly?

There is another way but is tricky - all countries agreeing to have uniform corporation tax rates and rules.  Then it becomes a non issue and we can have a global rate.  This is idealistic though I think and while there is tax competition I'd rather the UK be on the lower side even if there is a race to the bottom.  My counter argument to race to the bottom goes back to corporation tax only being 10% of our revenue and I think we'll make up for it with tax from increased economic activity.

Of course others see it differently which is fine of course.  I'd just rather they didn't dismiss the other viewpoint as "fantasy and nonsense".

[RickBFA]

http://www.pwc.ie/media-centre/press-release/2015/2015-pwc-ireland-thumbs-up-for-fdi.html

"An overwhelming majority (92%) of multinational CEOs confirmed that their investment in Ireland is a success..........The retention of our 12.5% corporate tax rate remains very important with over half (55%) saying this is a critical factor"

Multinationals in happy to pay less tax shock.  And everybody else is now competing to produce lower and lower corporation tax. It isn't that Ireland is a "success" that is the problem it is that they and the tax havens have made it harder for other countries to raise meaningful tax from corporations.  As I said in my post earlier, the end game is going to be pretty disastrous for everybody.

This isn't politics of envy stuff either.  I have done pretty well in life and was last a regular employee nearly 20 years ago. It is a question of good economics.  If you give money to people who haven't got a lot it tends to get recycled pretty quickly in the local economy, you give breaks to multinationals and the rich, it isn't so easily put back into our economy.  If you are hammering the poor at the sand time as benefitting corporations and the rich then I just can't see how that helps us balance the books.  There are simply better ways in my view.  

FWIW Ireland's success or otherwise would be an interesting debate.  It isn't that long ago when their economy was on its knees.  

Still no comment from you Doobs on corporation tax being a pretty negligible part of government income (less than 10%).  Stick all corporation tax at a blanket 5% worldwide and you'll get the countries who generate the income generating the most tax in income tax/national insurance/business rates/VAT in my opinion.  Put up dividends tax if you want to whack the real beneficiaries.

You are just guessing.  Whilst there is going to be a link between the overall tax burden and economic performance.  Speculating on how the coroporates would behave if you made their tax minimal. 

The directors role should be, more or less, maximise profits. The tax comes after you have maximised profits.  So you reduce tax, it shouldn't result in any more apprentices in the short term.  Maybe some of this extra post tax profit gets reinvested, maybe it all goes in dividends.  Who knows?  It is all very vague and inefficient if your aim is to balance your books right now.   

The government said they were going to take benefits from the disabled, and people get upset about an upgrading merc comment.  Get a grip, Rick.  I get more dividends, and I have quite a lot of shares, I am way more likely to just spend it on luxuries (or a nice holiday or squirrel it away) than somebody on the breadline.  This is just how it is and I really don't see anything controversial or offensive here.  Just compare the answers from your rich and poor friends if you asked them what they would do with £1000.  A lot of this trickle down economics needs some pretty hairy assumptions to make it better than letting the poor just keep their money. 

For context Doobs, I actually said "some of Osborne's cuts and PR are a total joke". I have never defended cuts to the disabled, that seems to be your assumption from your comment?

The example I was referring to was small businesses paying no business rates, they are not rich, but ordinary people trying to make a living, my comment about that was somehow twisted into the idea these small businessmen will upgrade their mercs.

It a different subject that corporation tax and large corporations - but this change is being funded by taxing larger corporations to the tune of £7.9 billion extra per year. Surely a step in the right direction?

[neeko]

The key question is what is the purpose of corporation tax?

Raise the maximum revenue for the HMRC?
Making it as complex as possible to create jobs for lawyers and accountants?
Divert revenue to Bermuda so they can make some tax revenue?
Encourage firms to relocate to the UK to generate uk jobs, and hence tax revenue?
Make it understandable by the general public?
Keep profits within companies so that they can pass them back to our pension funds we rely on for our retirement?

[DungBeetle]

The key question is what is the purpose of corporation tax?

Raise the maximum revenue for the HMRC?
Making it as complex as possible to create jobs for lawyers and accountants?
Divert revenue to Bermuda so they can make some tax revenue?
Encourage firms to relocate to the UK to generate uk jobs, and hence tax revenue?
Make it understandable by the general public?
Keep profits within companies so that they can pass them back to our pension funds we rely on for our retirement?

For me it is about striking a balance between point 1 and point 4.

[TightEnd]

betfair % chances next conservative leader

[TightEnd]

Surveys highlighted in yellow do not use the 16 word ballot question.