Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

George Osborne changes corporation tax to stop firms moving overseas Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    George Osborne took the first step to make Britain a more business-friendly country yesterday by announcing changes to corporation tax designed to reverse the trend of companies moving overseas to escape punitive rates and red tape.

    The Chancellor said he is planning a “brick-by-brick” dismantling of the barriers that are holding Britain back.



    In the coming months he will push ahead with plans to change employment law, reduce health and safety bureaucracy and improve support for British exporters.

    Yesterday, a bullish Mr Osborne claimed Britain was now “on the mend” and he predicted the UK would grow faster over the next two years than Germany, France, Japan and the United States.



    ...


    That was immediately followed by an announcement that GlaxoSmithKline would, as a result of the change, invest £500m in the UK.



    The pharmaceutical giant will open its first new factory in Britain in 30 years, with its chief executive declaring the change will “improve the attractiveness of the UK as a place for the private sector to locate and invest.”



    ...


    He singled out the European Commission report, also published yesterday, which forecast “that Britain will grow faster over the next two years than Germany, France, Japan the United States of America and the average for the eurozone and the EU.”


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...-overseas.html
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Boom! Naysayers turn away now!

    But seriously this is good news and will hopefully reignite Britain as a centre of business and trade.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    More capitalism. More greed. More inequality. More corruption.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    More capitalism. More greed. More inequality. More corruption.
    Yeah lets form a socialist state that would lead to less capitalism more greed more inequality and more corruption
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    ....
    Why people are using the Telegraph as a source for economics/finance related news, over something much more specific and less 'for the masses to understand'/generalistic, such as the FT, is beyond me :rolleyes:

    From the FT on these 'new' corporation tax reforms;

    Far-reaching changes de*scribed by George Osborne as “the most significant programme of corporate tax reforms for a generation” may be insufficient to stop some of Britain’s biggest multinationals from moving their headquarters offshore, says a leading tax expert.

    Drugs sector welcomes ‘patent box’ go-ahead
    George Osborne on Monday gave the go-ahead for a “patent box” – a measure proposed by Alistair Darling – to encourage high-tech business “to invest in the UK and create high-value jobs here”, writes Vanessa Houlder.

    The proposal to tax income from newly commercialised patents at 10 per cent from 2013 was welcomed by the pharmaceutical industry – but disappointed sectors that had hoped to benefit from a wider exemption.

    The plan differs slightly from Mr Darling’s proposal last December by covering “embedded” patent income. But it did not address the complaints of companies that had lobbied for the preferential tax treatment to apply to royalties and brands?as well as to patents.

    But Bill Dodwell, head of tax policy at Deloitte professional services group, said the proposals could have gone much further. He said: “There’s nothing in there that Labour hadn’t already announced. There is no more ambition than we had seen under the previous government.”
    Conclusion;

    So not only are these LABOUR POLICIES TO BEGIN WITH, they're really not going to be that effective - particularly if you see that ex ante corporation tax rates on interest earned through subsidiaries is one of the highest here in the UK, within the Western world.
    • Offline

      1
      (Original post by Martyn*)
      More capitalism. More greed. More inequality. More corruption.
      Too right, Martyn! :mad:
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Not a massively new or revolutionary idea, but I can't fault it. Still, a drop to 10% (On British made goods) is a massive drop, so it's got to affect government revenue a noticeable amount (I know in principle this is offset by companies moving to the UK, investing and increasing consumer spending etc. etc, but still). Either way though, I have nothing against the idea.

      (Original post by Teaddict)
      x
      Off topic but I'm glad to see that there's a Conservatives Against Fox Hunting movement. I had no idea that two-thirds of Conservative supporters were against fox hunting, but it's good to know.
      • Offline

        1
        (Original post by tieyourmotherdown)

        Off topic but I'm glad to see that there's a Conservatives Against Fox Hunting movement. I had no idea that two-thirds of Conservative supporters were against fox hunting, but it's good to know.
        Is that really so? One of the things in ths year's Tory election manifesto was that they intended to repeal the Act forbidding fox hunting.

        Didn't they take a consensus before they included it? No wonder the Americans think that Cameron is inept.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        16
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by tieyourmotherdown)
        Off topic but I'm glad to see that there's a Conservatives Against Fox Hunting movement. I had no idea that two-thirds of Conservative supporters were against fox hunting, but it's good to know.

        Yupp.

        (Original post by yawn)
        Is that really so? One of the things in ths year's Tory election manifesto was that they intended to repeal the Act forbidding fox hunting.

        Didn't they take a consensus before they included it? No wonder the Americans think that Cameron is inept.
        It appeals to their more countryside and farmer voters.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by yawn)
        Is that really so? One of the things in ths year's Tory election manifesto was that they intended to repeal the Act forbidding fox hunting.

        Didn't they take a consensus before they included it? No wonder the Americans think that Cameron is inept.
        I get what you're saying, and it is an odd decision to leave it in there if the polls are to be believed, but I wouldn't be surprised if it simply comes down to money. Let's be honest, a fair few of the Tory donors are going to be massive supporters of the repeal and I'm sure their 'influence' will be felt within the party. Still, more or less every party does it to a degree, I imagine.

        Either way I get the impression it won't happen with this parliament, particularly with the Lib Dems being in coalition
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Martyn*)
        More capitalism. More greed. More inequality. More corruption.
        What, and a more Communist Government isn't corrupt and greedy? Seriously go live in Cuba or somewhere and then come back here and see which you prefer. Capitalism is the best system so far as it rewards hard work, not like your beloved Labour (presumably) who have a chip on their shoulders about successful people and encourage scroungers to stay off work.

        Think.
        Offline

        9
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Barksy)
        What, and a more Communist Government isn't corrupt and greedy? Seriously go live in Cuba or somewhere and then come back here and see which you prefer. Capitalism is the best system so far as it rewards hard work, not like your beloved Labour (presumably) who have a chip on their shoulders about successful people and encourage scroungers to stay off work.

        Think.
        We are convinced to believe it is the best system - it's arguable as to whether it is or not.

        You say capitalism rewards hard work - so surely manual labour jobs should be paid quite well? Whereas those who sit at the top earn all this money off the hard work put in by the workers, how does capitalism reward hard work in this sense? Labour don't have have a chip on their shoulders about successful - this is a frequent and inaccurate point that has no basis, it's not the fact that people are successful - it's that people don't have the same opportunities to be successful.

        That said, I don't believe even Labour believe that anymore - they're barely left-wing at the moment.

        Also, while I confess that I know almost nothing of Cuban politics a lot of the governments who call themselves Communist are far from it.

        However, in response to the OP - I agree with Martyn, basically.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by yawn)
        Is that really so? One of the things in ths year's Tory election manifesto was that they intended to repeal the Act forbidding fox hunting.

        Didn't they take a consensus before they included it? No wonder the Americans think that Cameron is inept.
        Actually the manifesto only offered a free vote (i.e. Tory MPs would be allowed to vote as they wish) in Parliament on the subject.

        I expect many in the party knew such a vote would be very unlikely to succeed but it would be enough of a sop to the pro-hunting lobby who thought otherwise.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Craiky1506)
        We are convinced to believe it is the best system - it's arguable as to whether it is or not.

        You say capitalism rewards hard work - so surely manual labour jobs should be paid quite well? Whereas those who sit at the top earn all this money off the hard work put in by the workers, how does capitalism reward hard work in this sense? Labour don't have have a chip on their shoulders about successful - this is a frequent and inaccurate point that has no basis, it's not the fact that people are successful - it's that people don't have the same opportunities to be successful.

        That said, I don't believe even Labour believe that anymore - they're barely left-wing at the moment.

        Also, while I confess that I know almost nothing of Cuban politics a lot of the governments who call themselves Communist are far from it.

        However, in response to the OP - I agree with Martyn, basically.
        That's fair enough if you think that, and opportunities should be equal to those who deserve it. But what you seem to forget is that a Socialist system seems content with the divide being smaller but living conditions being worse, whereas in a Capitalist system the divide is larger but the poorest are much more well off than a poor person in a Socialist state. Capitalism works on incentives; if there's something to work hard for most people will and this will aid the economy. In Socialism, what is the incentive to do any better when success seems to be penalised by inflated taxes to help those who just can't be bothered to put the effort in?

        It's no coincidence that the living conditions are higher in countries which at one point (or still do) embrace Capitalism. Most Socialist Governments have failed to deliver their promises of equality and instead just gather the power for their party.
        Offline

        9
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Barksy)
        That's fair enough if you think that, and opportunities should be equal to those who deserve it. But what you seem to forget is that a Socialist system seems content with the divide being smaller but living conditions being worse, whereas in a Capitalist system the divide is larger but the poorest are much more well off than a poor person in a Socialist state. Capitalism works on incentives; if there's something to work hard for most people will and this will aid the economy. In Socialism, what is the incentive to do any better when success seems to be penalised by inflated taxes to help those who just can't be bothered to put the effort in?

        It's no coincidence that the living conditions are higher in countries which at one point (or still do) embrace Capitalism. Most Socialist Governments have failed to deliver their promises of equality and instead just gather the power for their party.
        I don't see what you mean opportunities should be equal to those who deserve it? Surely everyone deserves the same opportunities from birth, why would someone not deserve opportunities if they've just been born? I understand the argument that not everyone is going to be equal - but I personally we should try and reduce the gap as much as possible.

        I also disagree with the 'poorest are much more well off than a poor person in a Socialist state'. I'm not sure how you've arrived at this? As far as I understand a lot of Scandinavia is Socialist and they've turned out pretty well in the economy and in terms of well-being (but please correct me if I'm wrong).

        It's also interesting that a lot of research indicates that less inequality leads to a happer country - for both the rich and the poor.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        You can't quantify happiness.

        I mean two students who put the same effort in during education, get the same grades, but one is richer than the other, then both should be entitled to equal opportunities. They however are not equal to a waster who never cared about education and therefore didn't put the effort in. As you can see equality is often talked about as if it being fair - it's not.

        I knew you'd mention the 'Socialist' Scandinavian countries...in reality they're not that Socialist and their power has risen from past Capitalist ventures. Just look at Hong Kong, Dubai, the US...all of which are prosperous. Personally I'd take that over living in some backward Eastern European state, Comrade.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by manchild007)
        Why people are using the Telegraph as a source for economics/finance related news, over something much more specific and less 'for the masses to understand'/generalistic, such as the FT, is beyond me :rolleyes:
        The FT has been on the wrong side of every major economic debate for the last forty years.
        Offline

        12
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Craiky1506)
        We are convinced to believe it is the best system - it's arguable as to whether it is or not.

        You say capitalism rewards hard work - so surely manual labour jobs should be paid quite well? Whereas those who sit at the top earn all this money off the hard work put in by the workers, how does capitalism reward hard work in this sense? Labour don't have have a chip on their shoulders about successful - this is a frequent and inaccurate point that has no basis, it's not the fact that people are successful - it's that people don't have the same opportunities to be successful.

        That said, I don't believe even Labour believe that anymore - they're barely left-wing at the moment.

        Also, while I confess that I know almost nothing of Cuban politics a lot of the governments who call themselves Communist are far from it.

        However, in response to the OP - I agree with Martyn, basically.
        A person who does manual labour does something MOST people can do. It is not a high value job because the demand is not high and it is devalued because more people are able to do it. If manual labour was paid as much as being a lawyer, then the easier option [being a manual labourer] would be taken and we would see a sharp decrease in the amount of lawyers in the country.
        Same applies across the board. The majority determines the value of somebodies work by the skills required to do it.
        • Political Ambassador
        Offline

        17
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Craiky1506)
        I don't see what you mean opportunities should be equal to those who deserve it? Surely everyone deserves the same opportunities from birth, why would someone not deserve opportunities if they've just been born? I understand the argument that not everyone is going to be equal - but I personally we should try and reduce the gap as much as possible.

        I also disagree with the 'poorest are much more well off than a poor person in a Socialist state'. I'm not sure how you've arrived at this? As far as I understand a lot of Scandinavia is Socialist and they've turned out pretty well in the economy and in terms of well-being (but please correct me if I'm wrong).

        It's also interesting that a lot of research indicates that less inequality leads to a happer country - for both the rich and the poor.
        Scandinavian countries are often touted as being socialist but are in fact far from it.

        http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

        http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article17770.html

        http://theuklibertarian.com/2010/06/...ian-socialism/
        Offline

        9
        ReputationRep:
        I haven't got the time to read through all that now, but I'll keep an open mind till I get the chance to read through them, thanks.

        However, they do still have free higher education, free healthcare, high progressive taxation and free housing which are all socialist principles.

        (Original post by Ocassus)
        A person who does manual labour does something MOST people can do. It is not a high value job because the demand is not high and it is devalued because more people are able to do it. If manual labour was paid as much as being a lawyer, then the easier option [being a manual labourer] would be taken and we would see a sharp decrease in the amount of lawyers in the country.
        Same applies across the board. The majority determines the value of somebodies work by the skills required to do it.
        I was not recommending such a thing - I was merely questioning whether capitalism infact rewards hard work - equally if it does, someone who finds it harder to do a job but still does it as well as somebody who finds it easy, does this mean they should deserve more money, if capitalism indeed rewards hard work.
       
       
       
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      What newspaper do you read/prefer?
      Useful resources

      Groups associated with this forum:

      View associated groups
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • 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

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