Britain's Fake Recovery: Middle Class Young Worse Off Than Parents

ruggedtoast

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You would do what Dyson does and manufacture in Malaysia.

As far as I know, however, he is UK based as a company and therefore probably pays a bit of corporation tax.

But as you suggest, a lot of these companies are now 'stateless' and don't pay corporation tax to anyone. For the life of me, I don't see why the EU, USA etc. don't get together, and identify these tax haven countries. All they have to do is [amend any trade agreements as necessary] impose a 10% "Import Duty" specifically on all imports from these countries.

Maybe that's too simple!

Probably because the EU and USA are run by ultra rich people and ultra rich people like tax havens.

chewmylegoff

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You would do what Dyson does and manufacture in Malaysia.

As far as I know, however, he is UK based as a company and therefore probably pays a bit of corporation tax.

But as you suggest, a lot of these companies are now 'stateless' and don't pay corporation tax to anyone. For the life of me, I don't see why the EU, USA etc. don't get together, and identify these tax haven countries. All they have to do is [amend any trade agreements as necessary] impose a 10% "Import Duty" specifically on all imports from these countries.

Maybe that's too simple!

All they need to do is actually implement some sensible transfer pricing rules.

In theory it doesn't matter where a corporation is based- an offshore company should pay UK corporation tax on its UK profits whether it is operating as a branch (I.e. overseas company trading in UK) or a subsidiary (company incorporated in one of the UK's legal jurisdictions owned by overseas business).

Where it all goes wrong is when HMRC turns a blind eye to the supply chain costs being manipulated and ludicrous management charges being put through the books. They are relatively sharp on contrived interest payments so it beats me why they can't address the other sham arrangements but obviously they either have no appetite to get involved or they have been instructed to leave well alone.

vivatifosi

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Where it all goes wrong is when HMRC turns a blind eye to the supply chain costs being manipulated and ludicrous management charges being put through the books. They are relatively sharp on contrived interest payments so it beats me why they can't address the other sham arrangements but obviously they either have no appetite to get involved or they have been instructed to leave well alone.

I couldn't agree more. The foreign-owned businesses that I have worked for do this and it is seen as normal business practice. In fact, I'd go as far to say it is ingrained normal business practice for a trans-national corporation.

I don't know why it isn't addressed. Any idea? Presumably it is harder to get to grips with. Would it be something that you need management accounts rather than financial accounts to see in detail and spot abuse? I'm not an accountant but would like to know the answer.

andrewf75

CLAPTON wrote: »

the population of the world doubled over the last 50 years yet we are all better off.

True, but that has been at the expense of the worlds resources, which are not unlimited. I'd like to think that people in the world as a whole will increase their standard of living, but in a country like the UK we have been consuming more than our fair share and some kind of rebalance is inevitable. I'm not suggesting we will all be plunged into poverty but in terms of material wealth I don't see how we can ever reach the sheer levels of consumption of recent years. And thats no bad thing because our lifestyles are ridiculously wasteful.

CLAPTON

andrewf75 wrote: »

True, but that has been at the expense of the worlds resources, which are not unlimited. I'd like to think that people in the world as a whole will increase their standard of living, but in a country like the UK we have been consuming more than our fair share and some kind of rebalance is inevitable. I'm not suggesting we will all be plunged into poverty but in terms of material wealth I don't see how we can ever reach the sheer levels of consumption of recent years. And thats no bad thing because our lifestyles are ridiculously wasteful.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'fair' share: is that 'equal' share?

In the end each country can only consume what its peoples produce ; if productivity is low then they are poor, if productivity is high then they can be richer.

We will have to see how things play out but there is scope for all to be richer even if some decline in relative terms.

andrewf75

The world will never be equal, but its much more of a level playing field now than in the past. We're the 6th largest economy today. Where will we rank in 50 years time? 100 years? I guess you're right theres scope to get richer even if we decline in relative terms.

StevieJ

Conrad wrote: »

Just ONE example of how badly we predict things if we use a linear logic modality;



In 1970, the first Earth Day was celebrated — okay, “celebrated” doesn’t capture the funereal tone of the event. The events (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded.




Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:

1. "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald
2. "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
3. "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." — New York Times editorial
4. "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
5. "Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich
6. "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
7. "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
8. "In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine
9. "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
10. "Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich
11. "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
12. "[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine
13. "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt

I thought that was one of those Moneyweek adverts for a moment

Kennyboy66

CLAPTON wrote: »

as all taxes on companies are paid by the customer, best to abolish corporation tax for all and raise taxes elsewhere

This is just nonsense.

It depends on which tax, but in the end customers will incur some of the tax, employees will bear some (through lower wages) and the owners of the corporation will bear some.

There are plenty of ways in which corporation tax can and should be reformed, but the main beneficiaries of abolition are the wealthy.

CLAPTON

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

This is just nonsense.

It depends on which tax, but in the end customers will incur some of the tax, employees will bear some (through lower wages) and the owners of the corporation will bear some.

There are plenty of ways in which corporation tax can and should be reformed, but the main beneficiaries of abolition are the wealthy.

companies (unless subsidised by the taxpayer) have no money except that gathered from customers

all company costs including taxation are paid for by the customer

it is indeed the case that the company does have some control of its payroll and of its dividends and that company taxes can adversely affect the number of employees and their income levels and of course the profit distributed.

I wouldn't agree that in general imposing taxes hurts the wealthy more than it causes job losses and reduce salaries

vassa

Wow someone reads too many newspapers.