Turn on thread page Beta

How would you cut the deficit if you had supreme influence. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    First of all, crack down on tax evasion such as that by the likes of Amazon and Google.

    Then, increase the tax rate for the very richest in society (we're talking top few % here).

    Scrap things like HS2, that would save a lot of money.

    We could look into legalising marijuana, then regulating it and taxing it to raise money. Just throwing that out there.
    Amazon and Google are not tax evaders. These companies are tax avoiders. Huge difference between the two. There are more to the story than just outright avoidance, sure these 2 companies have huge amounts of UK sourced revenue but they also have huge overheads to pay. Think of the thousands of highly skilled people they hire for R&D and also for the infrastructure. The bulk of these companies profits don't come from UK therefore they have zero reason to pay UK taxes on it.

    The rich already pay more than their fair share of taxes. As it stands UK is one of the best places for the wealthy to be resident at which means they choose to pay their personal taxes in UK, they also contribute a significant amount to the local economies. Do you want UK to experience what France is experiencing? Remember the wealthy tend to be very mobile and unlike the plebs there isn't a shortage of countries that would roll out the red carpet for them.

    HS2 is a useful long term project.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alfissti)
    HS2 is a useful long term project.
    There are lots of things that have had their funding cut despite being important in the eyes of some. Why should HS2 be an exception?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    There are lots of things that have had their funding cut despite being important in the eyes of some. Why should HS2 be an exception?
    Hs2 boosts the economy.

    A boosted economy results in greater wealth. Greater wealth results in greater tax revenues. Greater tax revenues result in an ability to not have a deficit.

    It's a chicken and egg problem.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    There are lots of things that have had their funding cut despite being important in the eyes of some. Why should HS2 be an exception?
    Why it is an exception? Why not?

    UK does need infrastructure spending and has been in need of it for many years, rail infrastructure isn't something you could say pay today and get it tomorrow as it takes years to build, sure it can be put off but till when do you want it to be put off? Will you only be happy to start spending on it when on average there is a train crash once every month in UK?

    Energy and transport infrastructure will determine which country gets ahead. Don't you want a job after you graduate?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mick.w)
    right but the bank has a senior person in charge.
    i mean you could say the british people are in charge of the government but really its the prime minister that is in the most senior position.
    Yes, like any company a bank has a board of directors. Most of the chief executives of the UK banks that got into trouble are no longer with their former employers. In addition not all banks required bailouts, HSBC (Which I own part of within my pension scheme) did not require direct assistance or funds.

    Bank bashing on a wide scale is, imho, not that appropriate; by all means hurl targeted vitriol when deserved, but the blanket bashing does no good.

    One small part of the Chancellor's statement was to restrict the tax losses of the banks for carry forward, I presume in an effort to have some of them paying corporation tax on their profits sooner. It is actually a strange thing to do when you own over 75% of one bank and I think about 38% of another bank which are both carrying tax losses. If you want to sell of these shares then the tax losses carried enhanced their value, a touch of turkeys voting for Christmas.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So, the Govt doesn't employ people in HMRC?

    How come they are on civil service headcount?

    Perhaps you should write to the Cabinet Secretary, you could cut the civil service headcount by 20% by point out the Government doesn't employ them...
    Been done, Harold Wilson cut the civil service at a stroke, he reclassified postal workers in the 1960s or 1970s as not being civil servants.

    Whenever governments feed you numbers that look too good to be true have a bit of a poke around behind the scenes and you will soon see they are too good to be true.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alfissti)
    Amazon and Google are not tax evaders. These companies are tax avoiders. Huge difference between the two. There are more to the story than just outright avoidance, sure these 2 companies have huge amounts of UK sourced revenue but they also have huge overheads to pay. Think of the thousands of highly skilled people they hire for R&D and also for the infrastructure. The bulk of these companies profits don't come from UK therefore they have zero reason to pay UK taxes on it.

    The rich already pay more than their fair share of taxes. As it stands UK is one of the best places for the wealthy to be resident at which means they choose to pay their personal taxes in UK, they also contribute a significant amount to the local economies. Do you want UK to experience what France is experiencing? Remember the wealthy tend to be very mobile and unlike the plebs there isn't a shortage of countries that would roll out the red carpet for them.

    HS2 is a useful long term project.
    Come on, yes they make profits elsewhere but you believe they do not shift their costs into higher tax jurisdictions? Sorry, don't buy it, nor does anyone else.

    I spend my life dealing with tax for my clients, I have never been described as someone against business and wealth, quite the opposite. I will happily suggest to clients how they arrange their affairs, within the extant UK legislation, to reduce tax, Lord Clyde's famous mantra is my motto,

    "
    "No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

    Lord Clyde (1929)

    But honestly, they are taking the P at the expense of every smaller competitor within the UK market who cannot reduce their taxes via offshore pricing methods.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    It is bad if you own a business though. The quango's take up so much time that you are curtailed in your ability to take money. Cutting them and their jobs would be an improvement.
    A lot of them do a function that is useful to their industry, you are a little quick to tar them all with the same brush.

    Here is the SIA website, they do a fair bit of good for the fishing industry and are self funding with 80% of income from the Levy on landings and 20% from commercial activities.

    http://www.seafish.org/about-seafish/what-we-do

    You need to discriminate more; yes some quangos will be a right pain for business but often they function far better in the role than a government directed entity.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    Come on, yes they make profits elsewhere but you believe they do not shift their costs into higher tax jurisdictions? Sorry, don't buy it, nor does anyone else.

    I spend my life dealing with tax for my clients, I have never been described as someone against business and wealth, quite the opposite. I will happily suggest to clients how they arrange their affairs, within the extant UK legislation, to reduce tax, Lord Clyde's famous mantra is my motto,

    "
    "No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

    Lord Clyde (1929)

    But honestly, they are taking the P at the expense of every smaller competitor within the UK market who cannot reduce their taxes via offshore pricing methods.
    I don't really have a problem with their tax affairs. End of the day a company is accountable to its shareholders FIRST not the general public and most certainly not the IRS/HMRC.

    If a company doesn't organize its tax to be tax efficient then it is a company that is simply not worth investing any money into.

    Do I have a problem with them being unfair to smaller competitors? It is in reality no different to Ford having more money to buy better machinery to assemble or produce their cars where Rover couldn't therefore went out of business.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alfissti)
    I don't really have a problem with their tax affairs. End of the day a company is accountable to its shareholders FIRST not the general public and most certainly not the IRS/HMRC.

    If a company doesn't organize its tax to be tax efficient then it is a company that is simply not worth investing any money into.

    Do I have a problem with them being unfair to smaller competitors? It is in reality no different to Ford having more money to buy better machinery to assemble or produce their cars where Rover couldn't therefore went out of business.
    There is a difference between structuring a group to deal with different jurisdictions and setting uneconomic intra group charges to channel profits into low tax regimes. Fine if the pricing is reasonable and fair market value , but it is not, instead intra group charging appears to start with working out the figure wanted/ required and then producing justification in an attempt to support the quantum; in the long term, if international groups continue, they will end up hurting their shareholders, severe GAAR will be brought in to curb the abuse across all of the EU and other developed economies.

    I would prefer to invest in companies whose business models do not rely on smoke and mirror accounting, in the long term such practices bite back. (I bet Tesco shareholders now wish their policies re supplier contributions had been slightly less aggressive, appreciate not a tax driven practice but for the shareholders very painful)
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Reduce foreign aid to £2bn for emergency purposes
    Require those in full time employment of working age to take private outpatient insurance
    Review the services provided by the NHS with a view to removing them (no more operations for cultural reasons for example)
    Means test all welfare such that nobody earning above £60k gets a penny
    Cap housing benefit at £1600 per month (large family or live in central London - get on your bike)
    Cap child benefit at 3 children
    Freeze all in work benefits until 2020
    Make Cannabis and prostitution legal (more tax)
    Reduce stake in RBS to 40%
    Privatize a 60% stake in the BBC (reducing the share of the state to 40%)

    ..

    I'd think of more but i was unsure whether to comment in this thread at all given the OP.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alfissti)
    Amazon and Google are not tax evaders. These companies are tax avoiders.
    Google is a tax avoider. Amazon simply loses money, hand over fist. At some point the folk who have invested this money that Amazon is losing will get sick and tired of losing money and what happened to Bernie Madoff will happen to Amazon.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    Been done, Harold Wilson cut the civil service at a stroke, he reclassified postal workers in the 1960s or 1970s as not being civil servants.

    Whenever governments feed you numbers that look too good to be true have a bit of a poke around behind the scenes and you will soon see they are too good to be true.
    So HMRC staff aren't Civil Servants? Is that what you're saying? Effective from when?

    My friends (about four) who work there would be interested to know...
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alfissti)
    If a company doesn't organize its tax to be tax efficient then it is a company that is simply not worth investing any money into.
    Surely unless it makes greater post tax profit by being less tax efficient.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Google is a tax avoider. Amazon simply loses money, hand over fist. At some point the folk who have invested this money that Amazon is losing will get sick and tired of losing money and what happened to Bernie Madoff will happen to Amazon.
    Which year other than 2012 in the last 5 years did AMZ make a net loss and are those engineered loss or actual net operating losses?
    (Original post by Quady)
    Surely unless it makes greater post tax profit by being less tax efficient.
    Depends. Sometimes it is just a one time expense to be tax efficient for subsequent years. Plus in the case of AMZ, much of their "loss" stems more that they prefer to reinvest it into their own infrastructure rather than feed it to the IRS or HMRC Can't blame them now could you?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alfissti)
    Which year other than 2012 in the last 5 years did AMZ make a net loss and are those engineered loss or actual net operating losses?
    Try 2014 where the losses will be spectacular. In 2013 they managed to make a 0.37% profit.

    These are not engineered losses.

    Its gross margin is a little over 27%. A bookshop should have a gross margin of around 40%. The cost of overheads is growing as the business grows larger. It should be shrinking.

    Although Amazon does invest heavily in R&D, its real problem is that as it grows, its cost base increases.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So HMRC staff aren't Civil Servants? Is that what you're saying? Effective from when?

    My friends (about four) who work there would be interested to know...
    I made no comment about HMRC staff, of course they are civil servants.

    My comment was pretty precise, or so I thought, that in the past the civil service has been cut "at a stroke" by reclassifying employees, that is all I said. I made no comment about the current position. I am not sure why you think I did?
 
 
 
Poll
Should Banksy be put in prison?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.