We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 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!
Leaving the EU?
Comments
-
Kennyboy66 wrote: »You do understand that the UK's double taxation law with Luxembourg was signed in 1967 - a full 6 years before we joined the EU don't you ?
Doesn't matter. The world has moved on and globalised since.
In 1967 we still did the majority of shopping in corner shops.
It's absolutely no excuse to say "oh, it's ok, it was signed in 1967".Kennyboy66 wrote: »
Leaving the EU won't make a blind bit of practical difference to companies routing profits through low tax jurisdictions.
Put simply. Yes it would. We'd all be routing our profits through Nigeria or somewhere otherwise. The only reason they can do it is because of EU reg's and us being part of the EU.
Interesting that this would make no difference though, but in another breath, business would serious suffer. We seem to be making things up as we go along...such as the gross immigration scare stories based on nothing but fabrication.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Doesn't matter. The world has moved on and globalised since.
In 1967 we still did the majority of shopping in corner shops.
It's absolutely no excuse to say "oh, it's ok, it was signed in 1967".
Put simply. Yes it would. We'd all be routing our profits through Nigeria or somewhere otherwise. The only reason they can do it is because of EU reg's and us being part of the EU.
Interesting that this would make no difference though, but in another breath, business would serious suffer. We seem to be making things up as we go along...such as the gross immigration scare stories based on nothing but fabrication.
No - the reason they can do it (from a corporation tax point - the VAT point is different) is that we have a double taxation treaty signed in 1967.
It is nothing to do with the EU.
The problem is that politicians are great at creating tax loopholes to "encourage business".
The next one will be the "patent box" introduced in April 2013 and allows corporation tax at 10%.US housing: it's not a bubble - Moneyweek Dec 12, 20050 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »
Put simply. Yes it would. We'd all be routing our profits through Nigeria or somewhere otherwise. The only reason they can do it is because of EU reg's and us being part of the EU.
.
Why are Man. United based in the Cayman Islands ? Are they part of the EUUS housing: it's not a bubble - Moneyweek Dec 12, 20050 -
Kennyboy66 wrote: »Why are Man. United based in the Cayman Islands ? Are they part of the EU
The Cayman Islands are British Territory.
They have special status in the EU.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »We keep on being told how much the EU brings into the country in terms of revenues. However, we can't ignore the revenues lost. Amazon, Starbucks....it's lost revenue as they can process through Luxumberg, which put simply, they wouldn't be able to do if we left the EU. They would have to process through the UK.
Why would Amazon have move their (alleged) activities from Luxembourg to the UK if we left the EU?
How would revenues in the UK increase if we left the EU?0 -
Why would Amazon have move their (alleged) activities from Luxembourg to the UK if we left the EU?
How would revenues in the UK increase if we left the EU?
Because Amazon EU Sarl would not be able to operate in the UK.
Quite simple.
I can't honestly believe you are questioning why a company in the EU would have to change their operations....but on the other hand complain that it would be bad for business to leave the EU.
On the one hand you are asking "why would these companies have to change" and on the other, you state companies having to change being damaging to the UK if we left the EU.
Which is it? I don't believe you are a little backward, so can only assume you are being purposely difficult and obstructive.
I could ask you the same question....if you don't see any reason for Amazon or Starbucks to change the way they operated within the UK if we left the EU....what on gods name is so bad for business in leaving the EU?0 -
British business speaks.......
The Independent was an interesting choice of media to voice it through though.
Couple of names stood out. Martin Sorrell rates himself highly judging by his pay packet. Up 50% this year. Also Richard Branson who is a New Labour capitalist. Yet lives in the Virgin Islands for tax purposes no doubt.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »The Independent was an interesting choice of media to voice it through though.
Couple of names stood out. Martin Sorrell rates himself highly judging by his pay packet. Up 50% this year. Also Richard Branson who is a New Labour capitalist. Yet lives in the Virgin Islands for tax purposes no doubt.
True but are their opinions any the less valid on the subject of whether its a good idea to leave or stay in the EU?Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Because Amazon EU Sarl would not be able to operate in the UK.
Why not? What's to stop them operating in Luxembourg as now and using the UK biz as a fulfillment centre as they claim happens now?Graham_Devon wrote: »I can't honestly believe you are questioning why a company in the EU would have to change their operations....but on the other hand complain that it would be bad for business to leave the EU.
On the one hand you are asking "why would these companies have to change" and on the other, you state companies having to change being damaging to the UK if we left the EU.
I don't subscribe to the view that leaving would lead to financial armageddon but nor do I think it's a guaranteed road to milk and honey either.
Businesses would operate in the same basic way but there would be increased complexity, less control over the standards that would be required for export to Europe, potential resentment from trading partners.
On balance it seems better to take the security of current membership and renegotiate better terms as appropriate.0 -
While I agree it does seem easier to stay, I don't see us getting anything back of actual meaning such as control over freedom of movement or being able to sign our own trade deals (e.g. NAFTA).On balance it seems better to take the security of current membership and renegotiate better terms as appropriate.
Now, if you had those two, got rid of 90% of the administration, signed off accounts, scrapped the CAP and simply promoted trade I’d be on board.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards