Why is it apparently so difficult to get the big corporations to pay more tax?

grizzly1911

Are you really an estate agent Hamish?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Are you really an estate agent Hamish?

Nope.

But I find it immensely amusing that piglet is resorting to such desperate diversionary tactics.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

the_flying_pig wrote: »

i'm a bit fed up with 'debating' with you, TBH. .

Yes, it appears so.

This desperate flailing around of yours is all getting a bit 'Devonesque'.

You've made the quite frankly astonishing assertion that income taxes disproportionately hit low and middle income earners, despite it being absolutely evident that income taxes can be specifically targeted at high income earners.

You've also claimed that corporate taxes are fairer, essentially because not everyone owns shares.... Whilst ignoring the fact that almost everyone earning a wage in the country will have to be enrolled in a private pension moving forwards from here. Most of which will be invested in..... Shares.

Not to mention ignoring the obvious truth that reducing returns from share ownership can never be equitable or fair, as it hurts the pensioner with a meagre holding as much as, or indeed proportionately more than, the tycoon living in Belgravia. Income taxes can be targeted at the income bracket of your choice. Whereas diminished shareholder returns cannot be targeted by income group at all. They affect all shareholders indiscriminately.

You are absolutely barking mad if you think that reducing returns to shareholders, and increasing the price we all pay for goods and services, is a good thing.

And all the pseudo-intellectual babble in the world won't distract from that absolutely self evident fact.

System

grizzly1911 wrote: »

There are many many people both here and elsewhere in the world that are not in a position to share in all that wealth and never will they are not shareholders, they don't have pensions what do we do about them? Line them up against a wall?

You are falling into the socialist trap of thinking that a country only benefits from a company's activities if it can extract some tax revenue from it.
A prosperous company benefits a host country by providing goods or services that people in that country want, by buying goods and services, and by providing employment which in turn generates further economic activity.

The whole concept of a "tax burden" is misguided. The country is over-taxed and this stifles economic activity. This fact becomes increasingly apparent as companies and people gain the power to take their business and residence to more favourable locations around the world.
If extracting enough tax revenue to pay for government services is a problem, then we need to cut public expenditure to a sustainable level.

In a competitive world companies and individuals have no legal or moral obligation to opt to pay a higher rate of tax in this country.

CLAPTON

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

You are falling into the socialist trap of thinking that a country only benefits from a company's activities if it can extract some tax revenue from it.
A prosperous company benefits a host country by providing goods or services that people in that country want, by buying goods and services, and by providing employment which in turn generates further economic activity.

The whole concept of a "tax burden" is misguided. The country is over-taxed and this stifles economic activity. This fact becomes increasingly apparent as companies and people gain the power to take their business and residence to more favourable locations around the world.
If extracting enough tax revenue to pay for government services is a problem, then we need to cut public expenditure to a sustainable level.

In a competitive world companies and individuals have no legal or moral obligation to opt to pay a higher rate of tax in this country.

Indeed there are several issues
-how much tax should the government collect
-who should pay that tax
-should overseas based companies pay less tax in the UK than similar UK based companies?

Simply saying cut taxes, while a totally valid viewpoint, doesn't address the other points.

grizzly1911

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

In a competitive world companies and individuals have no legal or moral obligation .

You are right they have no morality.

MacMickster

Interesting paper published by HMRC last week on the tax gap - the difference between the theoretical maximum taxes that could be collected and those which actually are.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/mtg-2012.pdf

The overall tax gap is estimated at £32 billion or 6.7% of the total potential maximum tax liability.

Around half is attributed to SMEs through either income tax, corporation tax or VAT. Whilst large companies make the news, they are unlikely to be where HMRC or the government will concentrate their main efforts as they are likely to be met with fierce resistance and the top accountants and law firms for relatively little potential reward.

Conrad

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You are absolutely barking mad if you think that reducing returns to shareholders, and increasing the price we all pay for goods and services, is a good thing.

This is the argument I use all the time on those that urge curbing profits abd increasing corporate taxes. The only people you hurt are those with pensions and ISA's as well as the wokrers in those firms.

Conrad

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

The whole concept of a "tax burden" is misguided. The country is over-taxed and this stifles economic activity.

QUOTE]


Over in discussion time is a band of Brothers constantly arguing we need to Tax business more.

The point they are blinded to is no one HAS to risk thier safe cash savings in buying shares, and that they only chose to if the returns offset the risk.

An investor freindly enviroment encourages more investment and thus more jobs and income tax. That for me is enough of a contribution.


People have this bizzare entitlment notion that an enterprise is some kind of provider of additional social constructs.

System

MacMickster wrote: »

Interesting paper published by HMRC last week on the tax gap - the difference between the theoretical maximum taxes that could be collected and those which actually are.

.

They are wasting resources trying to chase a theoretical "gap" which is nothing but their own invention.
This is not an illegal shortfall, perhaps fraud, it is simply people organising their affairs so as to minimise their tax in accordance with the law. If the law alloys it, they should change the law or shut up.

All HMRC is doing is furthering their own job creation scheme, and that of the opposing lawyers and accountants they have spawned.