We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Apple shares - Invest or not invest?
Comments
-
grey_gym_sock wrote: »yes, it is possible to drive companies away with tax changes. it need to be taken into account. it doesn't mean you can't attempt to improve the tax system.
Yes, you can attempt such changes, and I'm sure HMG will, but I'm also pretty sure that it will be expensive and counter-productive.ppl will always disagree about what is fair in taxation. but you can't get round that by leaving fairness out of the discussion. that would be unfair!
<head assplodes>
I've never seen fairness introduced into a discussion on taxation in such a way that it made a positive contribution to the discussion. I like the story of the diners as it gets people thinking about the issues, particularly when it comes to how the cost saving should be shared out, and I sometimes take things another step and ask how increases in the meal price should be divided up.
I personally think that everyone should pick up their own tab, and if the price is too rich for them, well they can sod off and eat somewhere else!I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
well, 1 way i'd look at fairness is to ask: how can we raise the sum required while hurting the tax payers as little as possible? to me, that suggests that wealthier ppl should pay a higher percentage, but how much higher is very debatable.
there are other ways of looking at fairness. undesirable side-effects of taxation, such as making a business shut down, can also be unfair. i'm not sure why you want to leave fairness out of it, rather than contesting idea of fairness.
the diners may get ppl thinking, but the analogy between a country and a voluntary association isn't perfect. (just like any analogy. you can't prove anything with analogies.)
1 thing that struck me about it was that the richest diner didn't leave when he had to pay far more than everybody else. but did when he was physically attacked in the street. which i think is very much like rich ppl emigrating. it rarely happens just because of tax.
in the actual case of dining, i'd agree that ppl should pick up their own tab (or divide equally). but countries aren't the same.0 -
I just don't think fairness has a sufficiently concrete meaning to bring anything of value to the debate.
As for the richest diner leaving, I think this part of the analogy works quite well. People do accept that they might have to pay more, but to then be abused, insulted, despised and generally denigrated when they are already doing more than their fair (oh drat!) share is adding far too much insult to injury, so yes, they are more than likely to clear off.
If some other country treats wealthy people (and companies) as a valuable resource rather than a punchbag, then which country is getting it right and which needs an attitude adjustment?I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »If some other country treats wealthy people (and companies) as a valuable resource rather than a punchbag, then which country is getting it right and which needs an attitude adjustment?
well, i'd rather tax multinationals and wealthy individuals properly than denigrate them as tax dodgers. it's possible that some of the denigration will work as a means to that end; but the proper place to apply pressure is really to the government and HMRC, not to individual tax payers.
i wouldn't trust the government to make an honest attempt to do any of this.
wealth doesn't always go with being a valuable resource. that is 1 of the things it goes with. but also with luck; with low cunning; ...0 -
How do you design a tax system without applying subjective values and judgements? It's not a spreadsheet exercise. Some outcomes of the tax system are hard to value in themselves e.g. equality.gadgetmind wrote: »I just don't think fairness has a sufficiently concrete meaning to bring anything of value to the debate.
There's a deconstruction of the analogy here:grey_gym_sock wrote: »the diners may get ppl thinking, but the analogy between a country and a voluntary association isn't perfect. (just like any analogy. you can't prove anything with analogies.)
http://jeffberndt.hubpages.com/hub/Reality-Check-Please-Why-the-Restaurant-Analogy-Doesnt-Work0 -
There's a deconstruction of the analogy here:
My bins get emptied by the same people who empty the bins of everyone else in my city.
My roads get repaired (or not) by the same people.
My doctor sees everyone in the area.
My dentist works for the NHS and drills teeth, all teeth, wealthy teeth, poor teeth, just teeth.
I'm sure some can opt out (and so lessen the demand they make on government coffers!) but for the most part I don't.
I eat at the same table, as I'm sure do you, and your parents, your children, your friends, your relatives, and as do close to 100% of us.
I reject the "deconstruction" in pretty much its entirety.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »I reject the "deconstruction" in pretty much its entirety.
so, instead of 1 disagreement (about tax), we now have 2 disagreements (about tax, and about the analogy).
this is what analogies give you. just say no to analogies.0 -
Analogies are good as they get people thinking about the issues and (hopefully) seeing them from other angles.
TBH my main issue with (self titled) deconstruction was it was rather heavy on the TL:DR. The diner story had nary a spare bit of flesh on its bones whereas that response was from the scribble or starve camp.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Apple pays an effective Corporation tax rate on overseas earnings of 1.9%.
There's fair and taking the p***.
Like Starbucks consumers can vote with their wallets.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Apple pays an effective Corporation tax rate on overseas earnings of 1.9%.
Do you know how much do Samsung and Nokia and RIM are paying? And Microsoft and Google, for that matter?
Not a trick question, I honestly don't know.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.9K Spending & Discounts
- 244.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards