Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:02 am  

cod'ead wrote:

If we simply stopped taxing businesses alltogether and shifted the burden on to employees, how long before we saw the benefits of the increased investment in the economy? After all, Sal reckons that Tesco uses the money they avoid paying the exchequer by further investing it. None of that money would ever be used to further reward directors or go on increased share dividends would it?

I realise that there's a flaw in my plan: if the tax burden is shifted on to employees, they won't have a lot left to spend in Tesco's but surely Tesco can handle the downturn in business in the short term, while they invest in the economy and pay their employees more, so that they can then go out and spend..

If Tesco, Vodaphone, Philip Green, Richard Branson et al do not want to pay UK taxes on their profits from UK businesses, then why don't they fook off and do all of their business in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, the Cayman Islands or wherever? I'm sure there'll be plenty of UK businesses, who are willing to pay their fair whack, ready to fill the void.

Seems like a plan!!

Seriously I come back to this - Tesco will have paid in corporation tax and employers NI close to 2bn now you want to cut your nose off to spite your face by suggesting they go and operate in another country!!

On the other hand you complain when they do i.e. Tesco in Guernsey - your thinking, not for the first time, seem contradictory?

How are you going to replace the 2bn they contribute? By only allowing those companies who don't look to reduce the tax burden on themselves!! There will not be company in this country that doesn't look to reduce its tax burden.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:39 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Seems like a plan!!

Seriously I come back to this - Tesco will have paid in corporation tax and employers NI close to 2bn now you want to cut your nose off to spite your face by suggesting they go and operate in another country!!

On the other hand you complain when they do i.e. Tesco in Guernsey - your thinking, not for the first time, seem contradictory?

There you go again, your powers of comprehension really are limited aren't they?

I suggested that if the likes of Tesco want to offshore the administrative parts of their business in order to avoid paying tax on the productive parts of their business, then they should offshore the whole operation and leave the UK totally.

Sal Paradise wrote:

How are you going to replace the 2bn they contribute? By only allowing those companies who don't look to reduce the tax burden on themselves!! There will not be company in this country that doesn't look to reduce its tax burden.

Do you seriously think that there will suddenly be a £2bn (your figures keep creeping ever upward, without any evidence of such), hole in the economy? Do you believe that the people who currently shop at Tesco will just sit at home and starve?

[DaveO]

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:18 pm  

Him wrote:

Some of the offshoring could be stopped immediately if the government grew a pair. The likes of Tesco, Amazon, HMV etc that route their online sales through Guernsey to avoid UK tax could be stopped tomorrow.

There is actually an EU initiative to do more or less this. It is called the Common Corporate Tax Rate and what it boils down to is companies are taxed on their earnings in the country they make those earnings in regardless of where their HQ is.

Amazon has its HQ in Ireland because the Irish have a low corporation tax. They will do far more business in the UK than they do in Ireland but at the moment the Irish govt gets their corporation tax and we get nothing. So unless our government wants to engage in a race to the bottom and undercut the Irish this will not change. The Irish rate is 12.5% and ours which is not dissimilar to the rest of the EU is 23%.

This is very unpopular with the French and Germans and I think pressure is being put on the Irish given the bailout but I do not think anything has come of it so far.

However there are I believe only two states opposed to adopting the common corporate tax rate and that is the Irish (surprise, surprise) and wait for it........the UK. You may recall Osborne's admiration for the Irish economy before it went belly up and maybe it stems from that but it is certainly true that the Tories are opposed to this idea. Its probably some stupid free market principle that says even though we are shafted by what is going on here it's a result of market forces so it must be right!

You might also have seen articles about a deal the government did with Switzerland over tax on monies in Swiss bank accounts but that simply meant people and companies could move their money to a different country where there was no agreement. The UK govt did this in preference to supporting the common corporate tax rate despite the fact this deal is easy to get around whereas the common corporate tax rate is not.

I also think what the Irish do shows you quite clearly how a small country can easily afford to be a tax haven (low infrastructure costs, small to non-existent armed services, small population etc) whereas here if we tried to undercut the Irish corporate tax rate the burden would have to switch to the people via income tax (and if there is high unemployment then there is less of that anyway).

I think it is clear the common corporate tax rate idea is one of the best ideas to come out of the EU and it is shameful our idiotic government does not back it.

It is even good for small to medium sized companies who currently can't "do an Amazon" and shift their HQ to Ireland so have to pay the full rate of UK corporation tax yet compete with multi-nationals who are getting this tax break.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:34 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

There you go again, your powers of comprehension really are limited aren't they?

I suggested that if the likes of Tesco want to offshore the administrative parts of their business in order to avoid paying tax on the productive parts of their business, then they should offshore the whole operation and leave the UK totally.

Do you seriously think that there will suddenly be a £2bn (your figures keep creeping ever upward, without any evidence of such), hole in the economy? Do you believe that the people who currently shop at Tesco will just sit at home and starve?

When my power become as limited as yours I will start to worry.

On the 2bn - 864m in corporation tax 1bn in employers NI and the tax on the dividend, which I think is taxed at source? - easily 2bn and that is excluding the employees tax which they effectively provide? I don't know but I would hazard a guess that the taxation revenues derived from the Tescos entity is between 3-4bn a year.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:39 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

When my power become as limited as yours I will start to worry...

'Did you tell us to stop buying bananas?'

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:16 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

When my power become as limited as yours I will start to worry.

On the 2bn - 864m in corporation tax 1bn in employers NI and the tax on the dividend, which I think is taxed at source? - easily 2bn and that is excluding the employees tax which they effectively provide? I don't know but I would hazard a guess that the taxation revenues derived from the Tescos entity is between 3-4bn a year.

Yes you keep telling us that, yet in Tesco's annual accounts, they list £864 millions as their total group tax, including those taxes paid to non-UK countries. I did highlight that a while ago but you obviously failed to comprehend. And please don't even attapempt to bring up Tesco employees' tax & NI, like VAT, it's not Tesco's money, they're just acting as a conduit. What next, will you be including fuel duties too?

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:51 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Yes you keep telling us that, yet in Tesco's annual accounts, they list £864 millions as their total group tax, including those taxes paid to non-UK countries. I did highlight that a while ago but you obviously failed to comprehend. And please don't even attapempt to bring up Tesco employees' tax & NI, like VAT, it's not Tesco's money, they're just acting as a conduit. What next, will you be including fuel duties too?

Come on Coddy, if Tesco cease trading tomorrow no one would ever step into their place, none of the customers would shop else where and all the staff would be out of work for good.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:01 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Come on Coddy, if Tesco cease trading tomorrow no one would ever step into their place, none of the customers would shop else where and all the staff would be out of work for good.

Exactly what I keep saying when a new supermarket gets built and the TV news says something like "creating 400 retail jobs".
Supermarkets do not create retail jobs, they merely (at best) move them to a different location or (at worst) employ fewer.
They also reduce local GDP by shifting the cash from the local area into the national or global economy.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:46 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Exactly what I keep saying when a new supermarket gets built and the TV news says something like "creating 400 retail jobs".
Supermarkets do not create retail jobs, they merely (at best) move them to a different location or (at worst) employ fewer.
They also reduce local GDP by shifting the cash from the local area into the national or global economy.

Totnes is a model of how it should be done.

There is a Morrison's in the town centre and they have thus far resisted granting planning permission to any out of town stores. Although there were initial objections to Morrison's, the local, independent traders and those who have supported them, now look upon it as a symbiotic relationship.

Long may it remain so.

On the subject of job creation, the only figures that should be quoted are Full-Time Equivalent, not just an absolute of 400 or whatever jobs, 300 of which may well be part-time

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:04 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Totnes is a model of how it should be done.

There is a Morrison's in the town centre and they have thus far resisted granting planning permission to any out of town stores. Although there were initial objections to Morrison's, the local, independent traders and those who have supported them, now look upon it as a symbiotic relationship.

Long may it remain so.

Morrisons have quite a lot of town centre stores, many of which are part of the fabric of the actual High Street, I'm not sure where the deal is for them because they are difficult for their supply chain to service and there are always restrictions on signage/advertising to comply with, the store fronts are often much reduced to just a double shop width and they pay top whack for the land on which to position car parks which are then invariably used by shoppers to the other High Street outlets.

Not to mention the fact that they tend to be smaller stores with all of the associated economies of scale - but there is obviously money to be made from those outlets because as I say, I've been to a good many of them.