UK future revenue stream for the government?

PasturesNew

kabayiri wrote: »

Where do my fellow forumites think the gap is going to be made up over the next few years?

I'd tax pies 99% .... lots of fat bugg4hs out there.

ManAtHome

Properdeee has to be in the front line - annual tax of 1% of last sale value of secondary or non-dom abodes wouldn't cause rioting in the streets, and difficult to move your bricks offshore (CPO and resale or social housing for non-payment of course).

epz_2

got to love barclays, they take the benefits of our taxpayers but avoid even paying their own share.

I remember seeing George Osborn on tv trying to explain how he would apply pressure to them to curb bonuses, why he didnt just say he would charge them a higher rate than other banks to underwrite them is beyond me.

smamst

"Where do my fellow forumites think the gap is going to be made up over the next few years?"

Gordon Brown is going to look at this website find money saving opportunities and start Matched Betting with the public purse

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

I noted with interest 2 unrelated recent events.

Firstly, income tax receipts now do not cover the Benefits budget.

Secondly, Barclays latest financials indicate a reduction in effective corporation tax, from 20.4% to 19.4%; this in no small part due to a combination of 300+ offshore companies they work to good effect.

Is this a double whammy? Income tax receipts falling; corporate tax receipts failing to fill the gap.

Where do my fellow forumites think the gap is going to be made up over the next few years?

(Hint: I hope you have a mirror handy )

IIRC, Merrills booked enough losses in the UK that they are unlikely to pay Corporation Tax in the UK for the next 40 years.

BTW, before there's any talk of the UK 'inflating her way out of trouble', remember that most of the liabilities of the UK Government (pensions) are index linked.

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

IIRC, Merrills booked enough losses in the UK that they are unlikely to pay Corporation Tax in the UK for the next 40 years.

I think this is unlikely. They made massive losses on their US investments in Super Senior United States Asset Backed Securities Collateralised Debt Obligations.

You cannot just move those losses to the UK for tax reasons (unless done at correct transfer pricing).

You can also only offset one subsidary losses against another subsidary profits in the same year. Carried forward losses can only be offset against similar investments.

The story which originally appeared in the FT (60 years I think) was somewhere between gross exaggeration and plain wrong.

Generali

kennyboy66 wrote: »

I think this is unlikely. They made massive losses on their US investments in Super Senior United States Asset Backed Securities Collateralised Debt Obligations.

You cannot just move those losses to the UK for tax reasons (unless done at correct transfer pricing).

You can also only offset one subsidary losses against another subsidary profits in the same year. Carried forward losses can only be offset against similar investments.

The story which originally appeared in the FT (60 years I think) was somewhere between gross exaggeration and plain wrong.

Interesting, thanks.

Sometimes you have to take what is written on trust and normally (not always of course!) I have found the FT is pretty good on things like that. Clearly they fell down on that occasion.

kabayiri

kennyboy66 wrote: »

The story which originally appeared in the FT (60 years I think) was somewhere between gross exaggeration and plain wrong.

I agree, it's the headline first, veracity of the story second.

But having said that....there are often elements of truth.

The noughties has seen financial engineering on a massive scale, on both corporate and rich individual levels.

I might not agree with it, but I understand why these companies do it. They employ people with specific remit to minimise overheads, and this includes tax.

The end effect is consistent. Other contributors to the public purse will have to shoulder the burden.

One effective, if unpopular method, is VAT. Push up VAT to 30% over a period of time, and you accrue more income. It might also make people think twice about buying that imported hifi/telly etc, and generate a new interest in recycling and fixing existing goods.

Maybe this is too extreme, but for me, the idea of passing on the bulk of the burden to my offspring and even theirs stinks. It's our generation's problem.