[Mild Rover]

Re: Wealth re-distribution : Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:04 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Yes I take you point about the workers but without the entrepeneur the workers never get a chance and everything stagnates. Someone has to get the ball running and manage the growth both financially and operationally and that isn't the workers.

The Labour idea of having a cleaner on the board of a PLC is completely bonkers - what would they actually contribute at that level.

Education is an interesting one - you will always have inequality that is the human condition - some are genetically more intelligent than others and some parents see education as a way of progress and some see it as a necessary evil you can never have the level-playing field utopia that Labour seem to think is possible.

Somebody has to get the ball rolling and it should be properly incentivised. But products fill needs. Just as we’d still have had Olympic sprint champions if Usain Bolt had chosen to be a couch potato, and Jimmy Carr not telling jokes would not impact much on GDP, other companies would have developed computer software and employed people to do it if Bill Gates could not have been bothered.

Everybody contributes - if there’s no vision from the top, opportunities will be missed and efforts misdirected. Take away those working on delivery, nothing gets delivered, and everything stagnates. Take away the support staff in payroll and the cleaners, and the other staff are unable to deliver and everything stagnates. Should the people at the top of the hierarchy with the most responsibility be better remunerated than those below them in the organisation? Absolutely. Is the gap currently too big? Well, you seemed to think so a few pages ago.

In terms of a cleaner on the board, I do think somebody who could puncture a few overinflated egos might offer some benefit. Just having somebody to call bullshit, and not laugh along with weak jokes or inappropriate behaviour might put a slight brake on the arrogance that power and extreme wealth can breed. Is Elon Musk a talented guy? Yes. Would he benefit from being told ‘no’ occasionally? Clearly he would. And obviously it doesn’t have to be a cleaner specifically.

While resources are limited, we will have inequality. Some are more intelligent or driven than others. But circumstance plays a huge role. Would I have enjoyed the same level of success in my life if i’d been born in a shanty in Manila, for example? Of course not. More worrying, would I have the same chances growing up in Hull now as I did 30 or so years ago? I dunno, maybe the barriers were just less clear to me back then.

A level-playing field may not be feasible in the foreseeable, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t aspire to it and try to make things better. It is about equality of opportunity as well as wealth, and the game seems rigged to many - some of that can be put down to its ‘losers’ looking for something or someone to blame, but even you seem to think there’s a problem.

Re: Wealth re-distribution : Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:07 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

You are right to say that, from the Exchequer's point of view, it's about maximising revenues. However, the system has to be viewed as being "fair".

One of the flaws in Labours manifesto is to believe that increasing corporation tax, will substantially increase revenues. Business will always try to retain as much cash as possible and investing in capital is an area where the UK, particularily through the 70's and 80's and currently (due to the uncertainty of Brexit), has dropped way behind other parts of the world.

Meynard-Keynes 10 year cycle suggests the first thing that happens in a downturn in reduction in capital investment. A simple no deal would have been better from that perspective than the current situation. Business can thrive in any environment as long as it knows what its dealing with.

Re: Wealth re-distribution : Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:40 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote: If we left the EU and with a Tory government the first they would do is lower Corporation Tax - if they did that guarantee the tax take would increase. Between 2011 and 2016 CT take increased by £13bn despite the CT rate dropping from 28% to 19%. Its a balancing act its about revenues not rates Leaving the EU has nothing to do with our corporation tax rate, as you have said the Conservatives have already dropped it from 28% to 19% steadily over the last 8 years. Reducing taxes for millionaires and billionaires while cutting spending on essential public services is what they do. It is a complete myth dropping the corporation tax rate brings in more revenue, the reason we brought in more corporation tax in 2016 compared to 2011 is because we we were still recovering from the global financial crisis in 2011. It’s thought the rate at which increasing corporation tax will bring in less revenue is above 70%. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/ ... -deal.html

Sal Paradise wrote: If we left the EU and with a Tory government the first they would do is lower Corporation Tax - if they did that guarantee the tax take would increase. Between 2011 and 2016 CT take increased by £13bn despite the CT rate dropping from 28% to 19%. Its a balancing act its about revenues not rates Leaving the EU has nothing to do with our corporation tax rate, as you have said the Conservatives have already dropped it from 28% to 19% steadily over the last 8 years. Reducing taxes for millionaires and billionaires while cutting spending on essential public services is what they do. It is a complete myth dropping the corporation tax rate brings in more revenue, the reason we brought in more corporation tax in 2016 compared to 2011 is because we we were still recovering from the global financial crisis in 2011. It’s thought the rate at which increasing corporation tax will bring in less revenue is above 70%. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/ ... -deal.html

Re: Wealth re-distribution : Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:11 pm  

Sir Kevin Sinfield wrote: Leaving the EU has nothing to do with our corporation tax rate, as you have said the Conservatives have already dropped it from 28% to 19% steadily over the last 8 years. Reducing taxes for millionaires and billionaires while cutting spending on essential public services is what they do. It is a complete myth dropping the corporation tax rate brings in more revenue, the reason we brought in more corporation tax in 2016 compared to 2011 is because we we were still recovering from the global financial crisis in 2011. It’s thought the rate at which increasing corporation tax will bring in less revenue is above 70%. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/ ... -deal.html The facts are the facts CT rate reduced - CT revenues increased nobody really knows what has driven the movement but most casual observers would suggest there is a correlation - certainly those in the IR and the government. You know more than everyone else (sic) Do you think increasing the higher rate of tax to say 55% will generate more revenues? I think there is something wrong in system that once you are over c£46k you pay over to the government more than you retain - how is that equitable?

Sir Kevin Sinfield wrote: Leaving the EU has nothing to do with our corporation tax rate, as you have said the Conservatives have already dropped it from 28% to 19% steadily over the last 8 years. Reducing taxes for millionaires and billionaires while cutting spending on essential public services is what they do. It is a complete myth dropping the corporation tax rate brings in more revenue, the reason we brought in more corporation tax in 2016 compared to 2011 is because we we were still recovering from the global financial crisis in 2011. It’s thought the rate at which increasing corporation tax will bring in less revenue is above 70%. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/ ... -deal.html The facts are the facts CT rate reduced - CT revenues increased nobody really knows what has driven the movement but most casual observers would suggest there is a correlation - certainly those in the IR and the government. You know more than everyone else (sic) Do you think increasing the higher rate of tax to say 55% will generate more revenues? I think there is something wrong in system that once you are over c£46k you pay over to the government more than you retain - how is that equitable?

Re: Wealth re-distribution : Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:28 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The facts are the facts CT rate reduced - CT revenues increased

It depends which years you compare. Your statement above, which is not a fact, clearly shows you have an agenda. For example I can list below CT falling and revenues falling. How do you explain these facts?

2007/2008 corporation tax 28% we took £47 billion
2013/2014 corporation tax 23% we took £40 billion

Re: Wealth re-distribution : Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:39 am  

Sir Kevin Sinfield wrote:

It depends which years you compare. Your statement above, which is not a fact, clearly shows you have an agenda. For example I can list below CT falling and revenues falling. How do you explain these facts?

2007/2008 corporation tax 28% we took £47 billion
2013/2014 corporation tax 23% we took £40 billion

That is pretty simple BP the biggest payers of CT had an issue in the Gulf of Mexico that impacted their results.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Wealth re-distribution : Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:18 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

That is pretty simple BP the biggest payers of CT had an issue in the Gulf of Mexico that impacted their results.

How much CT did BP pay in those two periods?

Re: Wealth re-distribution : Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:01 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

That is pretty simple BP the biggest payers of CT had an issue in the Gulf of Mexico that impacted their results.

You'd have thought with a lower CT rate they would be throwing money at the Exchequer. Rather than pay nothing that year.

Re: Wealth re-distribution : Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:33 pm  

tigertot wrote:

You'd have thought with a lower CT rate they would be throwing money at the Exchequer. Rather than pay nothing that year.

You would, if that argument had any truth in it, but it doesn’t, it’s a myth peddled to justify lower taxes for multinational companies and billionaires.

Sal Paradise wrote:

That is pretty simple BP the biggest payers of CT had an issue in the Gulf of Mexico that impacted their results.

How long did the oil leak last? How much corporation tax did BP pay in each of the years below?

2007/2008 corporation tax 28% we took £47 billion
2012/2103 we took £40 billion
2013/2014 corporation tax 23% we took £40 billion
2014/2015 we took £43 billion

Re: Wealth re-distribution : Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:01 pm  

Sir Kevin Sinfield wrote:

You would, if that argument had any truth in it, but it doesn’t, it’s a myth peddled to justify lower taxes for multinational companies and billionaires.

You are forgetting the 'hidden hand of the market' more than makes up for it.