the snap general election thread

sevenhills

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Global companies move their profits accordingly.

But what is the optimum tax rate, to keep them here, but to raise maximum revenues?
In 2008 corporation tax rates were 30%, they are now 19%(with high revenues).
So could we raise it to 20/22% and have higher tax revenue, but still rates more than 5% below average? What rate is Corbyn suggesting?

Filo25

sevenhills wrote: »

But what is the optimum tax rate, to keep them here, but to raise maximum revenues?
In 2008 corporation tax rates were 30%, they are now 19%(with high revenues).
So could we raise it to 20/22% and have higher tax revenue, but still rates more than 5% below average? What rate is Corbyn suggesting?

Was Corbyn looking at 28% for everyone apart from small companies?

The fact that the UK is reaching record Corporation Tax receipts in spite of the recent rate cuts would suggest to me that in the medium term any kind of rate increase is unlikely to generate significant funds in the medium term.

westernpromise

I actually keep misreading Labour's campaign slogan as "For the many, not the Jew". ..

ThinkingOutLoud_2

sevenhills wrote: »

It is probably a good way to raise tax revenue, better taxing at 19% than income tax at 45%
A corporation tax below 22% would be below the world average.

But as I understand it they are not talking about 22% They are talking much higher!
Even if they only move by 5% - don't imagine that global companies won't react to move profit and flatten or reduce their wage bills.

chris_m

westernpromise wrote: »

I actually keep misreading Labour's campaign slogan as "For the many, not the Jew". ..

Tut, tut, tut

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Minimum wage increases and employer pension contributions suggest otherwise.

We will see. Or rather we won't because Labour are not going to get in by current projections.
Min wage is good thing, as are the increases in it broadly. The only negative being an estimated 60k jobs made "uneconomic".
But, increasing the base wage/pension contributions of even half your workforce (and how many Co' have most or even any on minimum wage) by around 3% year with inflation at half that does not have the same impact as singular 5-10% lift in CT.
Many companies have zero Min Wage staff...

Enterprise_1701C

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

We will see. Or rather we won't because Labour are not going to get in by current projections.
Min wage is good thing, as are the increases in it broadly. The only negative being an estimated 60k jobs made "uneconomic".
But, increasing the base wage/pension contributions of even half your workforce (and how many Co' have most or even any on minimum wage) by around 3% year with inflation at half that does not have the same impact as singular 5-10% lift in CT.y
Many companies have zero Min Wage staff...

Do they seriously think it is a good idea to have unions set pay rates across industries?

Quite honestly, from what I have heard, it appears to be the best way of making companies move abroad, and the labour manifesto certainly seems to be very antI aspiration.

It is the normal thing of labour thinking they can increase tax income by taxing the rich more and increasing tax on companies etc. You would think they would realise by now that it doesn't work. Companies move, and a lot of the people they are planning to tax highly will simply move overseas.

Fella

You'd really think after Dianne Abbott a week ago that next time Labour sent one of their morons to be interviewed on LBC they would at least ensure they knew the very basics of what they were talking about. Having said that, this is the shadow education secretary & she appears to think "give it me, give it me" is something resembling decent spoken English so no real surprise that she is too thick to even understand the basics of her own department.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/10/angela-rayner-diane-abbott-style-car-crash-interview-education/

michaels

sevenhills wrote: »

But what is the optimum tax rate, to keep them here, but to raise maximum revenues?
In 2008 corporation tax rates were 30%, they are now 19%(with high revenues).
So could we raise it to 20/22% and have higher tax revenue, but still rates more than 5% below average? What rate is Corbyn suggesting?

The US is planning to cut from 35% to 15% - which I would say is a ceiling for us if we want to keep any revenue in this country.

michaels

Fella wrote: »

So Labour not only produce a manifesto straight from the 1970s but they don't even have the courage to release it officially. Instead they leak it & take the official line that they "don't comment on leaks" so they can gauge reaction then strip out the bits they don't think will fly.

Gotta love the transparency of their student politics do they have actual 17-y-olds dictating policy these days?

I think it is a 2 in 1 - they also:
(a) get many more people to read (or at least hear about) what is in the manifesto than would have done if they had just gone ahead and published it.
(b) they get it on the news for two days, today and the day it is actually launched (when of course the Tories would have been planning a competing story to keep it out of the news agenda as much as possible)

Cynical manipulation of the public via the media reaches new lows