Labour - either very confident or very stupid

[UpTheBeehole]

[CardyTheClaret]

We are so f**ked as a country its untrue.

Are you this miserable and pessimistic in real life? How do you get through the day?

[claretandy]

Are you this miserable and pessimistic in real life? How do you get through the day?

I don't know how he gets out of bed in the morning, while the rest of us go and do a hard days graft.

[Lancasterclaret]

Ah, the old "you can't work as hard as I do" ********.

Well, I have time to work and time to read stuff so I don't come across as a xenophobic cave dweller on here.

How do you get through the day?

[Lancasterclaret]

Are you this miserable and pessimistic in real life? How do you get through the day?

Not at all!

I'm very pessimistic about the future of the country, because certain groups of people are getting blamed for stuff that is nothing to do with them by people who shouldn't be in charge, and plenty of people are believing them.

Sadly there are historical precedents about what happens when that continues unchecked.

[nil_desperandum]

Guess who wrote this (before the referendum)?
"What should be done? I believe that the best way forward is for Britain to renegotiate a new relationship with the European Union – one based on an economic partnership involving a customs union and a single market in goods and services."

[hampsteadclaret]

Columbo strikes,.. some heavy duty detective work going on there, in order to score a point...the Brexit S^^^^ continues daily on here, no respite,.. ever.

Some pi****** were stood outside in London today with -2 degrees on the streets, giving out bags of crisps.

No doubt they thought themselves sharp and savvy, but sadly I took a different view of them.

[nil_desperandum]

Columbo strikes,.. some heavy duty detective work going on there, in order to score a point...the Brexit S^^^^ continues daily on here, no respite,.. ever.
.

I assume that you're referring to my quiz question?
No point scoring at all- but very relevant today.
This right-wing Tory was forced to resign from the front benches in disgrace in 2011 after allowing his friend and best man Adam Werritty to take on an unofficial and undeclared role as his adviser - and paying him. (And there's much more).
Compare what he has been saying today with what he said before the referendum.
No "heavy duty detective work" there. Just quoting from "The Mail on Sunday".

[Lancasterclaret]

Plenty of people want the Brexit question to just disappear.

The one thing those people have got in common is that they all voted leave and are now facing the reality that its not the unicorn based utopia that they were promised.

Boris today proved how out of touch he is with reality, while Liam Fox attacking business for backing any idea that didn't follow the fact less and plan less Brexit manifesto. Oh, and Nadine Dorris tweeting yet again just how much she doesn't have a clue about the actual issues that need sorting to achieve a successful Brexit.

I feel for the average bloke or lass who voted for them, but its up to you lot to have properly questioned them before the referendum rather than just assuming that they knew what they were talking about.

[nil_desperandum]

I feel for the average bloke or lass who voted for them, but its up to you lot to have properly questioned them before the referendum rather than just assuming that they knew what they were talking about.

In a way I can understand people not asking the proper questions before the vote, but what I can't understand is how intelligent and generally sensible "leavers" don't challenge the likes of Fox, Davis and Johnson, when they are now saying the opposite of what they said before the referendum.
You might think that they might at least want to know why their position has changed, (in some cases radically).

[CrosspoolClarets]

Plenty of people want the Brexit question to just disappear.

The one thing those people have got in common is that they all voted leave and are now facing the reality that its not the unicorn based utopia that they were promised.

Boris today proved how out of touch he is with reality, while Liam Fox attacking business for backing any idea that didn't follow the fact less and plan less Brexit manifesto. Oh, and Nadine Dorris tweeting yet again just how much she doesn't have a clue about the actual issues that need sorting to achieve a successful Brexit.

I feel for the average bloke or lass who voted for them, but its up to you lot to have properly questioned them before the referendum rather than just assuming that they knew what they were talking about.

Hi Lancs, no offence, but much of the above is just sounding off.

Nothing bad has happened yet. Who is worse off? For fear of restarting the DSR (who was right) argument earlier, a few will be, but you have to look at the majority.

Our Remain politicians are getting up to mischief, which is dividing us. The EU try to exploit that. There is thus stuff in the papers daily that need not be. It doesn't affect people.

If we had accepted the result but then found the softest answer, instead of pretending a way of remaining is respecting the result, we would now be nearly there.

Northern Ireland is a case in point. No reason at all why that cannot carry on regardless. So what if a few unregulated goods sneak through? We shouldn't worry about millions we're talking billions. The EU know that. It's all a political football. They don't give a toss.

Boris, Fox etc are talking nothing but sense. They aren't reversing or lying. Neither am I. The EU are showing why we had to leave.

[AndrewJB]

I think you underestimate how nimble business people can be when it comes to moving money. There will always be tax havens. There will always be countries and economies ready to accept business and cash from elsewhere. Just look at the jockeying post EU Referendum.

The main reason Labour generally collects less tax is that if it's pitched too high businesses slow down their investment and Capex, which in turn can choke off the economy to an extent. It's a fine balance.

Don't think that all businesses and wealthy people don't want to pay tax - they do, but they want it to be spent well and they won't be screwed over if they think it isn't.

And I'd concentrate a lot more on Tax Evasion than Avoidance, if you do the latter then you could shut down half the accountancy profession and that would reduce revenues even more.

This is one, of the best arguments yet I've heard put forward for restricting wealth with a swingeing ceiling. To say high net worth individuals circumvent the decisions made by democratically elected governments and withhold tax when they're not happy with what their tax money is spent on is to beg the question, why tolerate their existence in the first place? Everyone wants tax money to be spent well, and not everyone agrees with spending policies, but we live in a democracy, and must live up to the responsibility of paying our tax regardless of our opinions.

You write this as though the government has no power to do anything about it, but there are already examples in UK governments doing just that. Withholding investment is no different to workers withholding labour. It is capital going on strike. There are plenty of rules in place to restrict the rights of workers to withhold their labour, and governments have legislated strikers back to work. I'll leave it to you to join up the dots.

As for tax havens - well we run most of the big ones, so shutting them down won't be hard. Like your argument about putting chartered accountants out of work, it could be said that without being tax havens these jurisdictions would lose a significant income. My answer to that is to subsidise them through the greatly increased tax revenues we'd see by shutting them down. Of course another one might open up, but it doesn't mean to say we can't set up a trade embargo against it, and make any dealings with the place illegal. We've done that successfully with many bigger countries (Russia, Iran, etc).

The way our tax system currently is, the rich can run rings around HMRC, but that doesn't mean we should just give up. Simplify the tax code, or otherwise be creative. For those who move to somewhere like Necker Island, tax the passport. We put in the resources to hunt for welfare cheats, and that is far less lucrative.

[Damo]

Andrew "just left of center"JB is a full blown Marxist.
God help us if we ever get a dose of Corbyns socialism.
Venezuela here we come

[Paul Waine]

This is one, of the best arguments yet I've heard put forward for restricting wealth with a swingeing ceiling. To say high net worth individuals circumvent the decisions made by democratically elected governments and withhold tax when they're not happy with what their tax money is spent on is to beg the question, why tolerate their existence in the first place? Everyone wants tax money to be spent well, and not everyone agrees with spending policies, but we live in a democracy, and must live up to the responsibility of paying our tax regardless of our opinions.

You write this as though the government has no power to do anything about it, but there are already examples in UK governments doing just that. Withholding investment is no different to workers withholding labour. It is capital going on strike. There are plenty of rules in place to restrict the rights of workers to withhold their labour, and governments have legislated strikers back to work. I'll leave it to you to join up the dots.

As for tax havens - well we run most of the big ones, so shutting them down won't be hard. Like your argument about putting chartered accountants out of work, it could be said that without being tax havens these jurisdictions would lose a significant income. My answer to that is to subsidise them through the greatly increased tax revenues we'd see by shutting them down. Of course another one might open up, but it doesn't mean to say we can't set up a trade embargo against it, and make any dealings with the place illegal. We've done that successfully with many bigger countries (Russia, Iran, etc).

The way our tax system currently is, the rich can run rings around HMRC, but that doesn't mean we should just give up. Simplify the tax code, or otherwise be creative. For those who move to somewhere like Necker Island, tax the passport. We put in the resources to hunt for welfare cheats, and that is far less lucrative.

Hi Andrew, wow, I think you are a long way from understanding the situation.

A ceiling on wealth - so the wealth never comes to UK, and those in the UK who can create wealth move somewhere else before they get started.

Laws stopping capital going on strike - so the capital invests where it can make a return. But doesn't invest in UK.

See what we've got - no jobs in UK.

Tax havens - Luxembourg? Ireland? Netherlands? Singapore? And many many more. How are these countries controlled by the UK government?

[nil_desperandum]

Northern Ireland is a case in point. No reason at all why that cannot carry on regardless. So what if a few unregulated goods sneak through? We shouldn't worry about millions we're talking billions. The EU know that. It's all a political football. They don't give a toss.

Boris, Fox etc are talking nothing but sense. They aren't reversing or lying. Neither am I. The EU are showing why we had to leave.

With all respect, this has nothing to do with "a few unregulated goods sneaking through", and its not the EU who would insist on a "hard border".
It's to do with us being legally unable to operate outside the EU under WTO rules without having a hard physical border.
This is what makes Johnson's proposal about APNR, (like the congestion charge!!) for the customs / tariff barrier a non-starter, and demonstrates - once again - that he is either unaware of the issues / WTO rules, or he is deliberately trying to mislead people.
Was Fox talking sense before the referendum when he said that the best way forward was to remain in the Customs Union and Single Market, or now when he is saying the opposite?
And don't forget - leaving brexit aside, that Fox is a seriously discredited politician - even within his own party, and a proven liar. (That's why they booted him out in 2011).

[dsr]

This is one, of the best arguments yet I've heard put forward for restricting wealth with a swingeing ceiling. To say high net worth individuals circumvent the decisions made by democratically elected governments and withhold tax when they're not happy with what their tax money is spent on is to beg the question, why tolerate their existence in the first place? Everyone wants tax money to be spent well, and not everyone agrees with spending policies, but we live in a democracy, and must live up to the responsibility of paying our tax regardless of our opinions.

You write this as though the government has no power to do anything about it, but there are already examples in UK governments doing just that. Withholding investment is no different to workers withholding labour. It is capital going on strike. There are plenty of rules in place to restrict the rights of workers to withhold their labour, and governments have legislated strikers back to work. I'll leave it to you to join up the dots.

As for tax havens - well we run most of the big ones, so shutting them down won't be hard. Like your argument about putting chartered accountants out of work, it could be said that without being tax havens these jurisdictions would lose a significant income. My answer to that is to subsidise them through the greatly increased tax revenues we'd see by shutting them down. Of course another one might open up, but it doesn't mean to say we can't set up a trade embargo against it, and make any dealings with the place illegal. We've done that successfully with many bigger countries (Russia, Iran, etc).

The way our tax system currently is, the rich can run rings around HMRC, but that doesn't mean we should just give up. Simplify the tax code, or otherwise be creative. For those who move to somewhere like Necker Island, tax the passport. We put in the resources to hunt for welfare cheats, and that is far less lucrative.

I don't think you've quite grasped the idea of tax havens, Andrew. A "tax haven" is somewhere where you get taxed less than at home - so if the UK goes back to 98% income tax, then everywhere in the world (apart from North Korea) would be a tax haven.

The other problem is jobs. If you stop people from being rich, then you stop them from employing anyone. Who employs me? Someone who's richer than me. what would happen if he wasn't allowed to be richer than me? He wouldn't want to employ me. I'd be poorer.

[Lancasterclaret]

Our Remain politicians are getting up to mischief, which is dividing us. The EU try to exploit that. There is thus stuff in the papers daily that need not be. It doesn't affect people.

19 months on. No plan. No workable solutions to the big problems.

Solution still hasn't changed I see - blame the people who told you it was all ********, and are still telling you it was all ********.

How so many bright and articulate people can change into claret andy over this is beyond weird.

Just what are you all going to do when it all goes tits up? We know that you'll blame remainers and the EU, but it won't stop there. It never does when people won't accept they have backed a duffer.

[Damo]

I'm not sure who you speak to, or follow on Twitter Lancaster, but most people I speak to agree that the jostling for position 're Brexit is going exactly how they expected it to

[RingoMcCartney]

A transgender model, who was fired by L'Oreal for her comments in which she said all white people are racist, has been appointed as a Labour equalities advisor.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... t-advisor/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This follows their decision to charge white delegates MORE for attending a conference in the East Midlands.

They also banned white able bodied men from attending another conference about equality!

[nil_desperandum]

I'm not sure who you speak to, or follow on Twitter Lancaster, but most people I speak to agree that the jostling for position 're Brexit is going exactly how they expected it to

Maybe those that you speak to, but Liam Fox and David Davis - amongst many other Brexiteers claimed in advance that negotiating our exit from the EU would be easy.
Indeed Snake-oil salesman Fox said: "a trade agreement between the UK and EU would be “one of the easiest in history” to obtain."
Davis changed his tune on September 5th 2017, and denied that he had ever said it would be easy.
Unfortunately for him, most people know how to use a google search:
It doesn't quite seem to be going as expected in the link below.

Just 11 Times Leave Campaigners Said That Brexit Would Be Easy https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/n ... 7#11764997" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndrewJB]

Not just a Marxist, but a 'full blown Marxist' - would that be like an M&S Marxist?

Damo - How does this jive with my support (from a democratic angle) for our monarchy? Or what many on here would describe as an odd or quaint belief in God? Being a homeowner, do I really just have masochistic tendencies? An S&M Marxist? Giving me a label doesn't count as reasoned debate, and won't make my argument go away.

Paul Waine and DSR - neither of you are actually engaging with what I've said in response to Guich's fine post. The state can exert control over ordinary people by preventing strikes, but exerts no similar control over capital. For many years now Britain's corporate taxes have been very low, and yet at the same time a lot of big companies have 'cash mountains' That money hasn't been invested back in the economy, but parked in tax havens instead. And this is with the very right wing government we've had over the last seven years. These companies simply don't see the investment opportunities that would get them to spend money here. I would argue that were some more of that profit taxed and spent here, these companies would have seen more investment opportunities. Yet during this time we've invested huge sums during austerity to track down welfare cheats.

You seem to suggest that if we just give a little more to the rich, they'll make things better, but that's not the case. I think a valid question is: Where is all this going, and what will the lives of my grandkids be like?

[claretandy]

Guess who wrote this (before the referendum)?
"What should be done? I believe that the best way forward is for Britain to renegotiate a new relationship with the European Union – one based on an economic partnership involving a customs union and a single market in goods and services."

Liam Fox, thats what Call me Dave tried and failed to negotiate, next...

[claretandy]

A transgender model, who was fired by L'Oreal for her comments in which she said all white people are racist, has been appointed as a Labour equalities advisor.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... t-advisor/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This follows their decision to charge white delegates MORE for attending a conference in the East Midlands.

They also banned white able bodied men from attending another conference about equality!

you, you, you, horrible racist

[JohnMcGreal]

Liam Fox, thats what Call me Dave tried and failed to negotiate, next...

Actually, to use his full title, it was the disgraced former defence secretary, Dr Liam Fox.

But close enough.

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm not sure who you speak to, or follow on Twitter Lancaster, but most people I speak to agree that the jostling for position 're Brexit is going exactly how they expected it to

Weird, the ones I follow who back Brexit don't talk about it now. Ever. They want it to miraculously be sorted. When Corbyn did his speech on the custom union the pro-Brexit papers mentioned it, but didn't go full on over it because they don't want to highlight that its actually a very sensible solution.

The journos I follow tend to be surprised at the levels of unpreparedness all over the the Government about all aspects of it. Even those who try to cut the govt as much slack as possible are struggling to find any positives in the govt stance.

Loads of others agree with you, its going exactly how we expected. Badly. But everybody is united in disbelief that there still is no plan, and whenever Liam Fox or Boris opens his mouth (Fox attacking business for not believing in unicorns instead of reality, Boris on london boroughs and the irish border) my twitter feed goes mental.

Come on Damo, do you really think that the Irish border is the same as the one between Camden and Islington? Do you think "hmm, maybe this bloke shouldn't be involved in this rather important decision as he's clearly not got a scooby?"

QUICK EDIT - the govt still have not published a draft withdrawal agreement. After 19 months. The EUs was ready in a week.

[taio]

Just what this message board needs - another drawn out tit for tat discussion about Brexit. Because it hasn't already been done to death.

[HatfieldClaret]

Actually, to use his full title, it was the disgraced former defence secretary, Dr Liam Fox.

But close enough.

Is that the disgraced former defence secretary that sued for libel and won ?

[nil_desperandum]

Is that the disgraced former defence secretary that sued for libel and won ?

Technically not true as he settled out of court, but you are essentially correct.
However, this was a specific case regarding a Dubai based businessman, and not relevant to the fact that he had misled Parliament on more than one occasion, cheated the system and claimed expenses illegally.
It does not alter the fact that:
In the 2009 expenses scandal, he was the Shadow Cabinet Minister found to have the largest over-claim on expenses and, as a result, was forced to repay the most money,
In 2010 he was forced to apologise for Breaches of the Ministerial code in relation to trips to Sri Lanka
And that in 2011 he was forced to resign in disgrace over allegations that he had given a close friend, lobbyist Adam Werritty, inappropriate access to the Ministry of Defence and allowed him to join official trips overseas.
And there's more ...

[Guich]

Not just a Marxist, but a 'full blown Marxist' - would that be like an M&S Marxist?

Paul Waine and DSR - neither of you are actually engaging with what I've said in response to Guich's fine post. The state can exert control over ordinary people by preventing strikes, but exerts no similar control over capital. For many years now Britain's corporate taxes have been very low, and yet at the same time a lot of big companies have 'cash mountains' That money hasn't been invested back in the economy, but parked in tax havens instead. And this is with the very right wing government we've had over the last seven years. These companies simply don't see the investment opportunities that would get them to spend money here. I would argue that were some more of that profit taxed and spent here, these companies would have seen more investment opportunities. Yet during this time we've invested huge sums during austerity to track down welfare cheats.

You seem to suggest that if we just give a little more to the rich, they'll make things better, but that's not the case. I think a valid question is: Where is all this going, and what will the lives of my grandkids be like?

Go on then Andrew, give it a go. Prove it can work.

But I should point out that western economies have worked this way for a long, long time, and not just under the 'very right wing government of the last seven years'. And all, without exception of the big businesses I have worked with or in have invested heavily in people, R&D, growth etc. They simply couldn't survive without doing so.

My business is small but, because of the way it's set up, across two territories, I can move it abroad within 24 hours. All the work I sub-contract out, as well as the few people I employ would then be abroad, and I could happily pay my tax there.

You could try stopping me by force but that wouldn't be nice

[Guich]

And btw, the main reason Businesses cut back spending and held some cash after 2008 was to strengthen their balance sheets for when the banks started lending again.

[RingoMcCartney]

you, you, you, horrible racist

You missed out "daily mail, xenophobe, little Englander and brexit or summat!"

[AndrewJB]

Go on then Andrew, give it a go. Prove it can work.

But I should point out that western economies have worked this way for a long, long time, and not just under the 'very right wing government of the last seven years'. And all, without exception of the big businesses I have worked with or in have invested heavily in people, R&D, growth etc. They simply couldn't survive without doing so.

My business is small but, because of the way it's set up, across two territories, I can move it abroad within 24 hours. All the work I sub-contract out, as well as the few people I employ would then be abroad, and I could happily pay my tax there.

You could try stopping me by force but that wouldn't be nice

If your "long long time" is the era during which we've had fewer controls on capital, then I should point out we had greater real economic growth and more widespread prosperity during the era preceding it (and following the war), when stronger regulations around capital were in place. I'm not arguing for something that has never been done before, or which isn't done now.

We are in agreement that high net worth individuals can arrange their affairs to greatly minimise their tax bills. Even many conservatives concede this is unfair to ordinary taxpayers, and sets high net worth individuals outside the standard expected of everyone else. With great wealth should also come greater responsibility, not greater freedom to flout the rules. There is nothing morally or practically wrong with a society unafraid to confront and impose rules upon its riches citizens.

[Guich]

We are in agreement that high net worth individuals can arrange their affairs to greatly minimise their tax bills. Even many conservatives concede this is unfair to ordinary taxpayers, and sets high net worth individuals outside the standard expected of everyone else. With great wealth should also come greater responsibility, not greater freedom to flout the rules. There is nothing morally or practically wrong with a society unafraid to confront and impose rules upon its riches citizens.

I think you'll find that most people are after fairness, whether from the left or the right wing. There are exceptions, of course, on both sides.

The casino bankers who precipitated the bubble burst in 2008 are not representative of the mainstream business or corporate finance world.

And as Paul Waine points out, big business provides employment and opportunity 'for the many, not the few'.

I don't like Fred Goodwin, Philip Green et al any more than you, and I've been in business all my adult life. We need to find a fair balance without upsetting the fair minded.

[Dejavu]

The last Labour government failed to reign in Capitalism so we have had , in effect, 40 odd years of rampant capitalism.

A few figures. Last year the top 1000 in this country increased their wealth by an average of £91 Million by far the biggest ever amount by an absolute mile, even allowing for inflation. Even more than the Yuppy era. 10 years ago you only needed to be worth £15 million to get on the list Now it is £120 million.

The Duke of Westminster recently avoided £3.2 BILLION of inheritance tax in a squalid deal with HMRC. He has never done a days work in his life. It was inherited because a relative was mates with William the Conqueror in 1066.

We are paying nearly £500 Million to renovate Buckingham Palace. That's 500 £million pound houses ffs!! Does anyone reading this even have a £million house? Meanwhile the Royals, without even a hint of humility, are all stashing money offshore to avoid tax. This whilst our public services are being raped by so called austerity. Yet we are still expected to pay to do their house up!!

They are extracting the urine!!

The last Labour government didn't do it's job. Corbyn will make sure this one does.

[Paul Waine]

Paul Waine and DSR - neither of you are actually engaging with what I've said in response to Guich's fine post. The state can exert control over ordinary people by preventing strikes, but exerts no similar control over capital. For many years now Britain's corporate taxes have been very low, and yet at the same time a lot of big companies have 'cash mountains' That money hasn't been invested back in the economy, but parked in tax havens instead. And this is with the very right wing government we've had over the last seven years. These companies simply don't see the investment opportunities that would get them to spend money here. I would argue that were some more of that profit taxed and spent here, these companies would have seen more investment opportunities. Yet during this time we've invested huge sums during austerity to track down welfare cheats.

You seem to suggest that if we just give a little more to the rich, they'll make things better, but that's not the case. I think a valid question is: Where is all this going, and what will the lives of my grandkids be like?

Hi Andrew, the state, any state, can only control people, corporations, capital or anything else that falls under that state's jurisdiction and control. We are now in a much more international and global world and lots of things are much more mobile. So, we see people moving to places where they perceive the opportunity for a better life. For me that was moving from north west to London. For others that can mean moving to another country.

The same can apply to corporations. There are internationally agreed rules that determine how activities of corporations are allocated between different countries and so are subject to taxes in each countries where they are active. (Each country can choose the rates of tax they charge). Of course, it is natural that corporates seek to organise their affairs such that tax is minimised - because it has been established by law that they must act to maximise the returns to their owners, their shareholders.

We are, I believe, all familiar that a number of very large corporations pay only little corporation tax in the UK - even though they sell a great deal to UK consumers. Amazon, Apple, Starbucks and many more come to mind. But, these are US founded corporations - so their "investment capital " doesn't come under the UK government's control. All the UK can do is ensure that the UK is a good place to invest and if so, the investment - and jobs - will follow.

I agree with Guich - what we require is fairness. No privileges for people with high net worth, no special ways for them to escape their share of tax. Equally there should be fairness in that people with high net worth should not be taxed where others are not taxed. Aim to take too much tax from some individuals and don't be surprised if their income and wealth is moved elsewhere - to the extent available to those individuals. This might just mean spending it on consumption rather than investing in wealth creation. Or it might mean moving abroad where the laws allow.

Anyway, enough.

[dsr]

The last Labour government failed to reign in Capitalism so we have had , in effect, 40 odd years of rampant capitalism.

A few figures. Last year the top 1000 in this country increased their wealth by an average of £91 Million by far the biggest ever amount by an absolute mile, even allowing for inflation. Even more than the Yuppy era. 10 years ago you only needed to be worth £15 million to get on the list Now it is £120 million.

The Duke of Westminster recently avoided £3.2 BILLION of inheritance tax in a squalid deal with HMRC. He has never done a days work in his life. It was inherited because a relative was mates with William the Conqueror in 1066.

FWIW, the Duke of Westminster was accounts manager at Bio-Bean, a coffee bean recycling company, according to Wikipedia. Anyway, he's only been out of university for four and a half years - he hasn't had time to spend too long in work!

He's some more anecdotal evidence. Forty years ago, I lived in a house with no central heating, no double glazing, no washing machine or freezer, a phone which I couldn't use for long calls or before 6 pm because of cost, and obviously none of the more recent fruits of capitalism like mobile phones, computers, microwave ovens, Sky TV, or the magical UpTheClarets message board. At 13 years old, I had had one family foreign holiday in my life (and that was in someone else's borrowed cottage), and one foreign school trip. I had only once stayed in a UK hotel on holiday; other holidays were in tents or caravans. My family was richer than average - not in the top 10%, but doing nicely.

Now, I and all my descendants go on foreign holidays at minimum every year, we all have central heating, double glazing, washing machines, phones, internet, etc etc etc. Would I go back to the seventies just to spite the Duke of Westmnster? No.

[Clarets4me]

Donald Trump's administration has agreed a tax deal with US Companies who've previously held large cash balances overseas in tax havens. They are able to repatriate these funds to the United States at an agreed rate of c 11%, if they use those funds to invest in the United States, research, development, job creation etc. Under previous administrations, the rate would have been 35%....

Before the brick-bats start, I hold no candle for Trump, but this measure makes alot of sense..

[If it be your will]

.

[Lancasterclaret]

Dsr launching the first line of the "Four yorkshiremen" of Monty Python fame brilliantly there.

[AndrewJB]

Donald Trump's administration has agreed a tax deal with US Companies who've previously held large cash balances overseas in tax havens. They are able to repatriate these funds to the United States at an agreed rate of c 11%, if they use those funds to invest in the United States, research, development, job creation etc. Under previous administrations, the rate would have been 35%....

Before the brick-bats start, I hold no candle for Trump, but this measure makes alot of sense..

Is the average American citizen allowed to negotiate their tax obligation down in such a way?

What you've witnessed is the Trump administration colluding with big business in ripping off the ordinary American taxpayer. And as well the takeover of American democracy by big money.

[Loyalclaret]

Donald Trump's administration has agreed a tax deal with US Companies who've previously held large cash balances overseas in tax havens. They are able to repatriate these funds to the United States at an agreed rate of c 11%, if they use those funds to invest in the United States, research, development, job creation etc. Under previous administrations, the rate would have been 35%....

Before the brick-bats start, I hold no candle for Trump, but this measure makes alot of sense..

Call me a cynic but let’s see how much of it spent on the things mentioned above. That is not a dig at Trump

[Clarets4me]

Is the average American citizen allowed to negotiate their tax obligation down in such a way?
What you've witnessed is the Trump administration colluding with big business in ripping off the ordinary American taxpayer. And as well the takeover of American democracy by big money.

The point surely, AndrewJB, is the money was amassed overseas legally under previous administrations. You and I may question the morality of the tax laws, but they are what they are..
At least, Trump has got that money back into the American economy and hopefully creating quality jobs for people.The US Treasury has 11% of something rather than 0% of the $600 - $800 billion that is expected to be returned.

Sometimes I think some on the left are more concerned with the " means " of how something is done, rather than the " ends ". If the outcome is better education for our children, better hospital treatment, shorter waiting times etc.. and a private sector company can achieve this, then all well and good...

[aggi]

The same can apply to corporations. There are internationally agreed rules that determine how activities of corporations are allocated between different countries and so are subject to taxes in each countries where they are active. (Each country can choose the rates of tax they charge). Of course, it is natural that corporates seek to organise their affairs such that tax is minimised - because it has been established by law that they must act to maximise the returns to their owners, their shareholders.

We are, I believe, all familiar that a number of very large corporations pay only little corporation tax in the UK - even though they sell a great deal to UK consumers. Amazon, Apple, Starbucks and many more come to mind. But, these are US founded corporations - so their "investment capital " doesn't come under the UK government's control. All the UK can do is ensure that the UK is a good place to invest and if so, the investment - and jobs - will follow.

That's a surprisingly simplistic view from you Paul. I'm sure you're as aware as I am of the tricks in transfer pricing, payments for goodwill, inflated inter-company consultancy fees, etc, etc that are used to shift profits to more favourable territories to avoid paying tax. Where a company is founded is less important than where those profits are being generated (and let's be honest, that money isn't going back to the US, it's being diverted via Irish and Dutch companies and ending up in tax havens. Apple is holding about £200,000,000,000 overseas whilst it waits for the tax holiday to be announced in the US).

As for it has been established by law that they must act to maximise the returns to their owners, their shareholders that often seems to be a justification but it certainly isn't the case. Companies Act 2006 has all sorts of other things that must be considered including the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment, The only reference to maximising returns is to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, which doesn't necessarily mean maximising profits (although it would for many).

[Paul Waine]

That's a surprisingly simplistic view from you Paul. I'm sure you're as aware as I am of the tricks in transfer pricing, payments for goodwill, inflated inter-company consultancy fees, etc, etc that are used to shift profits to more favourable territories to avoid paying tax. Where a company is founded is less important than where those profits are being generated (and let's be honest, that money isn't going back to the US, it's being diverted via Irish and Dutch companies and ending up in tax havens. Apple is holding about £200,000,000,000 overseas whilst it waits for the tax holiday to be announced in the US).

As for it has been established by law that they must act to maximise the returns to their owners, their shareholders that often seems to be a justification but it certainly isn't the case. Companies Act 2006 has all sorts of other things that must be considered including the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment, The only reference to maximising returns is to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, which doesn't necessarily mean maximising profits (although it would for many).

Hi aggi, agree, I deliberately kept post simple - there was too much in it anyway.

There are rules about how transfer prices are determined. Of course there is "wriggle room." IP and brands give a large element of discretion in where profits are earned. Similarly, whetw does "buying" activity take place. Of course, these things are negotiated and agreed with the tax authorities.

Re CA 2006 how much does that apply to non-UK corporates? And, I've read in Times just yesterday that UK companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders..... The key question re maximising profits is how long a period you measure them over, short term v long term?

I think there is a very good argument to abolish corporation tax. Be s big boost to every economy (except the tax havens, maybe). If no CT then there can be "equality" between equity and debt, and thus avoid excessive leverage. Of course, continue to tax income received by shareholders - but no need for relief on CT paid. Tax employment of labour - for all the things society/the state does to ensure good quality labour (education, health, law, security/defence). Similarly, tax land - and all the infrastructure that supports locations. So, corporates pay for their offices, factories and warehouses (and shops, if we still have bricks and mortar shops). For digital - tax the number of registered users, because that's how they all collect our data and provide advertising revenue. So, no need for CT.

[AndrewJB]

The point surely, AndrewJB, is the money was amassed overseas legally under previous administrations. You and I may question the morality of the tax laws, but they are what they are..
At least, Trump has got that money back into the American economy and hopefully creating quality jobs for people.The US Treasury has 11% of something rather than 0% of the $600 - $800 billion that is expected to be returned.

Sometimes I think some on the left are more concerned with the " means " of how something is done, rather than the " ends ". If the outcome is better education for our children, better hospital treatment, shorter waiting times etc.. and a private sector company can achieve this, then all well and good...

This is just in keeping with his tax cut for billionaires. Were a much smaller company to try to repatriate profits and only pay a third of the tax owed, they'd be told where to go. He might spin it as some sort of win, but it's not. It's just him aligning with the interests of the rich against those of 99% of the population. You can't tell me they held him over a barrel with this. "Lower our tax rate, or..." Or what? They'll leave the money in tax havens? Fine - just legislate their repatriation within a timely period, taxable at the usual rate. Job done.

[dsr]

Is the average American citizen allowed to negotiate their tax obligation down in such a way?

Yes. They don't have PAYE, the American system is that sometime after 31st December they have to fill in a tax return and send in a cheque. People who can't afford to pay (ie. they have chosen to spend the money on something else) often negotiate a lower settlement.

[JohnMcGreal]

There are quite a few posters on this thread who are really concerned about saddling future generations with debt, so I'll just leave this here:

'UK will be paying Brexit divorce bill until 2064, says Treasury watchdog'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 53751.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dsr]

There are quite a few posters on this thread who are really concerned about saddling future generations with debt, so I'll just leave this here:

'UK will be paying Brexit divorce bill until 2064, says Treasury watchdog'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 53751.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even the most ardent pro-Remain supporter would accept that we would pay more by remaining than by leaving. They would of course reckon it would be worth it, but that's not a "saddling future generations" issue.

[Clarets4me]

In reality, after 5-10 years, the vast majority of this will be Britain paying it's Nationals EU pensions, until their deaths whenever that will be...

[nil_desperandum]

Even the most ardent pro-Remain supporter would accept that we would pay more by remaining than by leaving. They would of course reckon it would be worth it, but that's not a "saddling future generations" issue.

I really don't think they would accept this, and the governments impact assessments also say the opposite - but, of course, (as you are going to tell us), these assessments could be wildly wrong.
Most accept that brexit is going to cost a lot of money in the short term. Whether there will be long term economic benefits - only time will tell.
(But I doubt I'll be around to enjoy them, unless we get some really good deals).