The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[DungBeetle]

The Lords blocks Osbourne's tax credits cuts.  Interesting from a democratic standpoint.

Only in the sense that anything the Upper House does isn't democratic.  Osborne could have avoided any "crisis" if he had put such major changes in the Finance Bill where they would have been properly debated and not a statutory instrument.

Surely they have been "properly debated" though.  They've been passed by vote twice and they also debated Labour's motion to stop the changes?  Given this has happened, I have no idea why it wasn't part of the finance bill.  What extra level of debate is there on top of 2 votes and a motion to oppose?

Just read another article on this, and looks like Osbourne skips the proposed amendments stage by doing it as a statutory instrument so perhaps the Lords kicking it back for review is indeed fair enough.

[horseplayer]

Click to see full-size image.

[ripple11]

The Lords have dug George out of a potential nasty hole.

He can now come back with softer proposals......even with Boris snigering in the background.

[DMorgan]

http://www.capx.co/external/immigration-is-the-last-great-trade-restriction/

[david3103]

Click to see full-size image.

Not sure of the source for this but it demonstrates very little understanding of the Corporate Tax structure. The use of apostrophes around Capital Allowances is presumably meant to suggest that these are a dubious item when they are a long-established means of encouraging investment within companies.
Previous year's losses get offset before a CT bill, why wouldn't they be?

Attacking Osborne via a minor shareholding in the family business is a cheap shot IMO.

Far better to attack his policies in a direct and in-depth way. There are plenty of targets available.

[StuartHopkin]

Was thinking just the same thing David.

"Timing differences" aren't really avoidable with HMRC's capital allowances!

[AlunB]

I assume that's from Private Eye and is a tongue-in-cheek swipe at Gideon. I wouldn't get too upset. It's satire innit. Mind I had a quick look at the accounts and for a pretty straightforward business it does seem to be run in a very tax efficient way

As for the use of quote marks they are just used to differentiate terms directly quoting from the accounts from normal prose . Which is correct usage. I also expect they had an intended comic effect of making them look a bit dodgy.

[DungBeetle]

If it's private eye then it's taking the mickey out of the often poor understanding of corporation tax by the genral media and various politicians (see the nonsense about the £93 billion of corporate welfare that Corbyn talks about)

[DaveShoelace]

Question of the day

Should we vote tactically or based on our ideals? For example if the Green Party have no chance getting in in your constituency, should you instead vote for the party that has a good chance of getting in which is the closest to the Greens? Or indeed tactically vote to make sure another party doesn't get in?

[TightEnd]

vote tactically in marginal constituencies and according to ideals in safe constituencies

[Woodsey]

Question of the day

Should we vote tactically or based on our ideals? For example if the Green Party have no chance getting in in your constituency, should you instead vote for the party that has a good chance of getting in which is the closest to the Greens? Or indeed tactically vote to make sure another party doesn't get in?

I have done and would again.

[david3103]

If it's private eye then it's taking the mickey out of the often poor understanding of corporation tax by the genral media and various politicians (see the nonsense about the £93 billion of corporate welfare that Corbyn talks about)

Is it though?

[AlunB]

If it's private eye then it's taking the mickey out of the often poor understanding of corporation tax by the genral media and various politicians (see the nonsense about the £93 billion of corporate welfare that Corbyn talks about)

Is it though?

Just while we're (still) here, are you saying it's fine that a company paying dividends and high six-figure salaries to its directors doesn't pay corporation tax for seven years?

[DungBeetle]

If it's private eye then it's taking the mickey out of the often poor understanding of corporation tax by the genral media and various politicians (see the nonsense about the £93 billion of corporate welfare that Corbyn talks about)

Is it though?

Just while we're (still) here, are you saying it's fine that a company paying dividends and high six-figure salaries to its directors doesn't pay corporation tax for seven years?

Indeed - they directly offset.

Company makes £1 million.  It has 2 options.

1) pay owner £1 million salary.  Result:  Income tax at 45% on £1 million is paid.  Corporation tax = zero.
2) pay owner nothing.  Result:  Corporation tax at 20% on £1 million.  From what is left owner draws dividend and is taxed at 32.5%

Both methods generate very similar amounts of tax for Exchequer.  The problem is option 1 leads to people complaining about how outrageous it is that the company is paying no corporation tax!

There is corporate tax avoidance going on out there, but this isn't it.

[DungBeetle]

If it's private eye then it's taking the mickey out of the often poor understanding of corporation tax by the genral media and various politicians (see the nonsense about the £93 billion of corporate welfare that Corbyn talks about)

Is it though?

I'd hope so - otherwise as you say it's a car crash of an article if it's serious!  I took the capital allowances references as subtle digs at the £93 billion corporate subsidy stuff that gets thrown about, written by a lecturer bloke who doesn't seem to understand what capital allowances are (when I read his executive summary).