Re: Housing : Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:46 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Your post appears to be based on a quite ridiculous assumption that no company in the world ever pays any corporation tax.

That's not what he's suggested. If a company can domicile their tax affairs in a country where they pay no tax whatsover, why would they domicile in a country where they pay any %?

Re: Housing : Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:08 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Well as we head toward the end of 2013 that gets my vote for most naive comment of the year.

Please explain why a company that is currently paying 0% tax in the UK by domiciling in some other country (or by adopting other legal avoidance measures) is suddenly going to domicile here and start paying 21% tax because the government reduced it from 23%?

They could reduce it to 10% and it will still make no difference as no company will start paying tax at 10% when they can avoid it completely.

Where in earth did you get this totally idiotic idea that they would?

Perhaps if you were a company currently paying corporation tax here and considering a move maybe a lower tax rate might - and I say might - encourage you stay here for tax purposes. I am not suggesting for one minute that the likes of Google will relocate here on the back of a corporate tax reduction.

If a reduction the corporate tax rate increases revenues then society as a whole will benefit - would you not agree?

Re: Housing : Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:19 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

I have compared them - there is a range of books published which contain O level exam questions from the 1960s and 70s, I stood and read the Maths one in a Waterstones a couple of years ago (wasn't going to bloody buy one) and couldn't answer one single question, and yet there was a time when I did and I got a reasonable grade (second time of taking), the fact that I then found my own childrens GCSE Maths papers hard to follow without the course work to back up the questions just shows that you have to take exams in context and not just have a sweeping view that its all dumbed down now.

Should be easy enough to teach some skills in replying in a business like way to an email or drafting a formal letter but businesses should also play their part and not moan about deficient skills if they haven't bothered with any input - how many 15 year olds get a valuable experience from their two week work experience schemes, not many I'd guess.

Being able to lay out a letter should be a given, being able to type an e-mail in a coherent fashion and being reasonably competent in basic office suite i.e. Word, Excel and Powerpoint. Speaking on a telephone is a life skill that should be taught at school

Re: Housing : Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:39 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Being able to lay out a letter should be a given, being able to type an e-mail in a coherent fashion and being reasonably competent in basic office suite i.e. Word, Excel and Powerpoint. Speaking on a telephone is a life skill that should be taught at school

So parents have no responsibility in developing these "life skills" then?

[DaveO]

Re: Housing : Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:35 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Your post appears to be based on a quite ridiculous assumption that no company in the world ever pays any corporation tax.

It isn't based in that at all. How did you come to that daft conclusion?

[DaveO]

Re: Housing : Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:50 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Perhaps if you were a company currently paying corporation tax here and considering a move maybe a lower tax rate might - and I say might - encourage you stay here for tax purposes. I am not suggesting for one minute that the likes of Google will relocate here on the back of a corporate tax reduction.

Any company who can relocate it's HQ for a lower tax rate will do so and plenty have. Why pay 21% instead of 23% when you can pay 0%?

An interesting one is going to be what happens if Scotland decided on independence. The SNP are saying they will reduce the corporation tax rate to 18% undercutting the rest of the UK rate. It might be more feasible for national UK companies who at the moment can't indulge in the tax avoidance the multinationals like Google can to relocate north of the border.

Should we indulge in a race to the bottom in the event this happened or should we just reform the tax laws so this kind of avoidance is no longer legal?

If a reduction the corporate tax rate increases revenues then society as a whole will benefit - would you not agree?

It won't. Companies that can avoid corporation tax will carry on avoiding it. Those that can't avoid it (basically any non-multinational company with its HQ here who can't move) will be paying less tax so revenues will decrease.

Re: Housing : Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:07 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I did not say today's teachers are overpaid - I said teachers in our day were underpaid. Nor did I say the teaching profession was under/over valued by society. What I said was teachers saw the role as a profession and accept the T&C as an occupational hazard.

Sorry I thought you meant from the point of view of a regular person rather than specifically from a teachers point of view.
I'd agree that's how teachers saw it in the past, but as you yourself acknowledge, the role and duties of a teacher have changed and become a harder job. I would probably apply similar thoughts to nurses, where the role has evolved massively over time and become a much more demanding job.

Sal Paradise wrote:

I would agree it is harder to be a teacher these days as the behavioural standards in society have dropped and the respect for your elders has subsided.

I don't quite know whether behavioural standards have dropped but I'd agree there is less respect and I'd also suggest a more selfish attitude. However, I believe these to be things which can be fairly easily changed if kids are put in the right environment. I see it regularly with the kids I coach. Fortunately I'm in the position where I can concentrate on fewer kids. Around 1:15 instead of 1:30 in schools.

Re: Housing : Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:51 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Any company who can relocate it's HQ for a lower tax rate will do so and plenty have. Why pay 21% instead of 23% when you can pay 0%?

An interesting one is going to be what happens if Scotland decided on independence. The SNP are saying they will reduce the corporation tax rate to 18% undercutting the rest of the UK rate. It might be more feasible for national UK companies who at the moment can't indulge in the tax avoidance the multinationals like Google can to relocate north of the border.

Should we indulge in a race to the bottom in the event this happened or should we just reform the tax laws so this kind of avoidance is no longer legal?

It won't. Companies that can avoid corporation tax will carry on avoiding it. Those that can't avoid it (basically any non-multinational company with its HQ here who can't move) will be paying less tax so revenues will decrease.

But as someone said, most companies that make profits here do pay corporation tax.

How do you define a company "that can't move" as this seems central to your idea?

PS Just heard the number one reason why Scotland will vote against independence on The One Show. Apparently the major supermarkets say they will put prices up significantly oin Scotland if it becomes independent. Currently Scottish prices are effectively subsidised by the rest of the UK. If independent Scotland would be treated as 'international' by the supermarkets and so have separate pricing to the rest of the UK. can't see the average Scottish punter voting for that whatever the CT rate!

Re: Housing : Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:13 am  

Dally wrote:

How do you define a company "that can't move" as this seems central to your idea?

Probably the 90% plus of companies who are not global corporations, can't recall the exact stat but when we used to do our marketing we were always told that the sector of employees who employ less than 500 bodies represent 90+% of the total number of businesses.

Re: Housing : Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:22 am  

DaveO wrote:

Any company who can relocate it's HQ for a lower tax rate will do so and plenty have. Why pay 21% instead of 23% when you can pay 0%?

An interesting one is going to be what happens if Scotland decided on independence. The SNP are saying they will reduce the corporation tax rate to 18% undercutting the rest of the UK rate. It might be more feasible for national UK companies who at the moment can't indulge in the tax avoidance the multinationals like Google can to relocate north of the border.

Should we indulge in a race to the bottom in the event this happened or should we just reform the tax laws so this kind of avoidance is no longer legal?

It won't. Companies that can avoid corporation tax will carry on avoiding it. Those that can't avoid it (basically any non-multinational company with its HQ here who can't move) will be paying less tax so revenues will decrease.

Why is every multi national not domiciled in a tax haven then? BP is a multi national corporation every opportunity to relocate where it likes and pay no tax - yet it chooses to domicile here - so your point of why pay 30% when you can pay nothing doesn't ring true?

Your last point doesn't ring true either - lower corporation tax actually increases take, why would that be?