5 ms·

I would prefer they raised it to 90%.

by ionised 10y ago

harel 10y ago
Any why is that?
- Singletoned 10y ago
  He probably lives in Europe and wants all the UK companies to flee there.
  - harel 10y ago
    Most likely, but still, I find seeking the misfortune of others is a sad state of mind, usually reserved to those on the lower end of the self esteem scale.
    - ionised 10y ago
      Your armchair psychology is cute but I'm just pissed at what I view as half a century or more of deregulation and tax cuts geared towards big businesses and the wealthy and privileged, always at the expense of the poorest in society.
      - Singletoned 10y ago
        To be fair, the poorest in society are a LOT better off now than they were 50 years ago.
        ionised 10y ago
        You could say that about anything though. Just because they are better off now in relative terms, it doesn't justify how much more of the share in terms of land, resources and overall wealth the rich and and elite are taking for themselves.
      - harel 10y ago
        90% of tax on corporations? What reason would there be to run a company then? What would drive people to take this road? What result other than the total collapse of an economy would a 90% tax bring? I would leave Britain, and so will many others. Lower the bar on corp tax and you create more companies creating more jobs for people, increasing tax revenue and the wellfare of those in work (and by that the wellfare of those not in work).
        harel 10y ago
        Also, what if I'm a medium sized company, employing 85 happy people, but registered as a corporation? In the UK i'd probably be a limited company but for the sake of argument, lets pretend I'm a registered corporation. I also have offices in the states employing 85 people. At that point when 90% corp tax hit me, 85 people in the UK would be unemployed. And I would be sad. I'm all for worker rights. I don't think running companies and worker rights are mutually exclusive things.
        ionised 10y ago
        > I don't think running companies and worker rights are mutually exclusive things If it was a co-operative then I'd agree.
        harel 10y ago
        I can't reply to your comment as its too deep :) It comes down to people. Some people are good people and will run a company well. Regardless of its tax status. Some are bastards and will act accordingly. This kind of thing, as cliche' as it sounds, starts at home. Bastards are cultivated, not born. The thing is by saying to someone you can run your company but I'll take 90% of your profit comrade, you are basically telling them not to bother. And to those that already bothered you're saying - stay as you were. Do not attempt growth. Besides, why stop at 90%? Why not just take it all?
        ionised 10y ago
        I would leave Britain, and so will many others. Lower the bar on corp tax and you create more companies creating more jobs for people, increasing tax revenue and the wellfare of those in work (and by that the wellfare of those not in work). That's how it's suppsoed to work. What actually happens is they lobby for evebn more favourable tax arrangment and deregulation, for weaker worker protections and focus primarily on short-term returns for their shareholders at the expense of all else. The whole 'job creator' myth needs to be put to rest. It's straigh out of trickle-down Reaganomics. Corps are self-serving, psychopathic and amoral and cannot be trusted or expected to behave with a social conscience.
- ionised 10y ago
  Maybe I'm just nostaligic for the goold old days where corporation tax was high and businesses and financial insitutions banks adequately regulated. In the last 60 years or more we've had a free-for-all of deregulation, slashing of tax rates for the upper tiers of society and an ever-widening division of wealth and prosperity as a result. Tax the ever loving shit out of them. Bury them up to their eyeballs in regulation. Ban commercial and investment banks from being one and the same. Obviously I've not thought this out fully, but I'm pissed off at how much of a disgrace our current societal bias towards the the already wealthy and privileged is.
andriesm 10y ago
Business tax at 90 percent?! Do you want all businesses (that can) to move out of the country?
mjohn 10y ago
Why? If corporations are taxed to the point where there are negligible profits they will cease to do business in Britain. As corporations leave for other markets (or simply go out of business) so will the jobs. That's not to say corporations should not be taxed (although a coherent argument could be made for zero corporation tax), but certainly taxing corporations out of existence is a bad idea.
imtringued 10y ago
That will only benefit large corporations that can afford to evade taxes or immediately reinvest the money like amazon. Small businesses suffer the most from high taxes and large corporations are more willing to actually pay them if they are low enough which ends up increasing collected taxes in absolute terms. Not to mention that the money spent on corporate taxes is paid by the consumer.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  There's a shocking level of economic illiteracy in the above comment ^^^ A) Corporations that don't like paying UK corporation taxes (like Google and Facebook) already try to evade by declaring their income in Ireland. Except that doesn't work when it's plainly false as demonstrated when HMRC recognized this. If HMRC chose it could rake in even more via fines from Google (weird that they didn't). B) Big shareholders and large corporations suffer the most from high corporate taxes since they earn the most in dividends. C) The tax incidence of corporate taxes falls on big shareholders. At a time when corporate profits and inequality are at all time highs the space to squeeze shareholders has never actually been greater. This is just cynical opportunism by Osborne. He sees a way to reward his friends and he's taking it.
  - imtringued 10y ago
    Point A and B contradict each other. If e.g. Starbucks avoids taxes then they are clearly not suffering from high taxes. The local coffee shop next door does suffer from unfair competition.
    - crdoconnor 10y ago
      Unless Starbucks were tax evading and then stopped because they were being threatened by HMRC. Which is what happened: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23019514 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23019514 Turns out threatening large corporations actually works pretty fucking well. We could do a lot more of that.
  - Tomrn 10y ago
tonyedgecombe 10y ago
If it was that high I would shut down my business, why bother if there is no reward?
- pdkl95 10y ago
  This is a tax on profit, right? Then the tax can be avoided by increasing expenses. Pay out the profits to the employees that created the profit.
_Understated_ 10y ago
Then the cost of their products will rise by 90% and the customers will have to pay 90% more to obtain them. So why would you want that?

I would prefer they raised it to 90%.

by ionised 10y ago

I would prefer they raised it to 90%.

harel 10y ago

Any why is that?

Singletoned 10y ago
He probably lives in Europe and wants all the UK companies to flee there.
- harel 10y ago
  Most likely, but still, I find seeking the misfortune of others is a sad state of mind, usually reserved to those on the lower end of the self esteem scale.
  - ionised 10y ago
    Your armchair psychology is cute but I'm just pissed at what I view as half a century or more of deregulation and tax cuts geared towards big businesses and the wealthy and privileged, always at the expense of the poorest in society.
    - Singletoned 10y ago
      To be fair, the poorest in society are a LOT better off now than they were 50 years ago.
      - ionised 10y ago
        You could say that about anything though. Just because they are better off now in relative terms, it doesn't justify how much more of the share in terms of land, resources and overall wealth the rich and and elite are taking for themselves.
    - harel 10y ago
      90% of tax on corporations? What reason would there be to run a company then? What would drive people to take this road? What result other than the total collapse of an economy would a 90% tax bring? I would leave Britain, and so will many others. Lower the bar on corp tax and you create more companies creating more jobs for people, increasing tax revenue and the wellfare of those in work (and by that the wellfare of those not in work).
      - harel 10y ago
        Also, what if I'm a medium sized company, employing 85 happy people, but registered as a corporation? In the UK i'd probably be a limited company but for the sake of argument, lets pretend I'm a registered corporation. I also have offices in the states employing 85 people. At that point when 90% corp tax hit me, 85 people in the UK would be unemployed. And I would be sad. I'm all for worker rights. I don't think running companies and worker rights are mutually exclusive things.
        ionised 10y ago
        > I don't think running companies and worker rights are mutually exclusive things If it was a co-operative then I'd agree.
        harel 10y ago
        I can't reply to your comment as its too deep :) It comes down to people. Some people are good people and will run a company well. Regardless of its tax status. Some are bastards and will act accordingly. This kind of thing, as cliche' as it sounds, starts at home. Bastards are cultivated, not born. The thing is by saying to someone you can run your company but I'll take 90% of your profit comrade, you are basically telling them not to bother. And to those that already bothered you're saying - stay as you were. Do not attempt growth. Besides, why stop at 90%? Why not just take it all?
      - ionised 10y ago
        I would leave Britain, and so will many others. Lower the bar on corp tax and you create more companies creating more jobs for people, increasing tax revenue and the wellfare of those in work (and by that the wellfare of those not in work). That's how it's suppsoed to work. What actually happens is they lobby for evebn more favourable tax arrangment and deregulation, for weaker worker protections and focus primarily on short-term returns for their shareholders at the expense of all else. The whole 'job creator' myth needs to be put to rest. It's straigh out of trickle-down Reaganomics. Corps are self-serving, psychopathic and amoral and cannot be trusted or expected to behave with a social conscience.
ionised 10y ago
Maybe I'm just nostaligic for the goold old days where corporation tax was high and businesses and financial insitutions banks adequately regulated. In the last 60 years or more we've had a free-for-all of deregulation, slashing of tax rates for the upper tiers of society and an ever-widening division of wealth and prosperity as a result. Tax the ever loving shit out of them. Bury them up to their eyeballs in regulation. Ban commercial and investment banks from being one and the same. Obviously I've not thought this out fully, but I'm pissed off at how much of a disgrace our current societal bias towards the the already wealthy and privileged is.

andriesm 10y ago

Business tax at 90 percent?! Do you want all businesses (that can) to move out of the country?

mjohn 10y ago

Why? If corporations are taxed to the point where there are negligible profits they will cease to do business in Britain. As corporations leave for other markets (or simply go out of business) so will the jobs. That's not to say corporations should not be taxed (although a coherent argument could be made for zero corporation tax), but certainly taxing corporations out of existence is a bad idea.

imtringued 10y ago

That will only benefit large corporations that can afford to evade taxes or immediately reinvest the money like amazon. Small businesses suffer the most from high taxes and large corporations are more willing to actually pay them if they are low enough which ends up increasing collected taxes in absolute terms. Not to mention that the money spent on corporate taxes is paid by the consumer.

crdoconnor 10y ago
There's a shocking level of economic illiteracy in the above comment ^^^ A) Corporations that don't like paying UK corporation taxes (like Google and Facebook) already try to evade by declaring their income in Ireland. Except that doesn't work when it's plainly false as demonstrated when HMRC recognized this. If HMRC chose it could rake in even more via fines from Google (weird that they didn't). B) Big shareholders and large corporations suffer the most from high corporate taxes since they earn the most in dividends. C) The tax incidence of corporate taxes falls on big shareholders. At a time when corporate profits and inequality are at all time highs the space to squeeze shareholders has never actually been greater. This is just cynical opportunism by Osborne. He sees a way to reward his friends and he's taking it.
- imtringued 10y ago
  Point A and B contradict each other. If e.g. Starbucks avoids taxes then they are clearly not suffering from high taxes. The local coffee shop next door does suffer from unfair competition.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    Unless Starbucks were tax evading and then stopped because they were being threatened by HMRC. Which is what happened: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23019514 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23019514 Turns out threatening large corporations actually works pretty fucking well. We could do a lot more of that.
- Tomrn 10y ago

tonyedgecombe 10y ago

If it was that high I would shut down my business, why bother if there is no reward?

pdkl95 10y ago
This is a tax on profit, right? Then the tax can be avoided by increasing expenses. Pay out the profits to the employees that created the profit.

_Understated_ 10y ago

Then the cost of their products will rise by 90% and the customers will have to pay 90% more to obtain them. So why would you want that?