Actually the take went up after they changed the accounting method. Furthermore each year that passes takes us further away from the GFC and so companies, such as big banks, returned to profit and have burned off their losses since then so have started paying tax again. This is not a consequence of anything the government have done, unless you count the bail out of the banks in 2008.

The tax law has also changed significantly to increase the tax base and restrict what companies can do to divert profits or class income as non-taxable.

What's telling is that tax take of CT as a % of the whole went from just above 8% in 2010/11 (right after a recession) down to below 7% in 2015/16.

So you can say that despite businesses having some measure of recovery since the GFC and the widening of the tax base, the cuts in the rate has seen CT fall as a percentage of the total tax take and so increased the burden borne by other taxes, in particular indirect taxes (regressive taxes).

There have been a lot of perceptions thrown about here and that's as it should be should be. A great deal of politics is perception. Having worked in politics for many years at a local level, here is what I perceive about your last general election.

The 20% polling gap at the outset of the election season was totally theoretical and not based on an actual election. Therefore, there was only a perception that Labour was far behind and the Tories. There is also a long standing perception that British voters choose a party instead of a candidate. I challenge that. Having observed the 1992 election while living in Streatham, a marginal constituency that year which Labour gained from the Tories, quite a few people I talked to were down on the incumbent, Sir William Shelton, and planned to vote for the Labour candidate, Keith Hill. It had nothing to do with either Major or Kinnock. I believe pollsters overlook that dynamic.

There also as the perception that the UKIP vote would monolithically go to the Tories. If I learned one thing in politics, no "bloc" vote is ever monolithic. As the election proved, while both the Tories and Labour gained votes from 1995, Labour gained more. Part of that may be attributed to a higher vote count but the shattering loss of UKIP votes distributed far more evenly between the "Big 2" than was predicted. That allowed Labour to gain more votes overall than the Tories thus gaining seats while the Tories lost seats, particularly in England and Wales. The "win" that Corbyn is being credited with is one of momentum. Political momentum is very fleeting. Just ask David Cameron.

The final point I'd like to make is what happened in Scotland. Going into the election, the Tories had one seat and ran their previous campaigns from Central Office. This time they allowed they Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party a lot more autonomy both on issues and campaign style and it showed. This is the one area of the country where the Tories out gained all other parties, a phenomenal 12 seats gained to Labour's 6 and the Lib Dem's 3. This gain is allowing Theresa May to form a viable government. Subtract the Scottish Tory 12 and Corbyn would have a path to form a coalition government that he doesn't have now even with Sinn Fein's 7 not sitting. I would watch Ruth Davidson as she is the rising star in the Tory Party. The Tories like people who win and coming out of this election Davidson is their one true winner.

Divorced...And LOVING it!
VJRAM Rev.
CPFC since Boxing Day 1989 CPFC 2-2 CFC
Gregg Berhalter, US International & USMNT Head Coach
Jill Ellis, England International & Retired USWNT Head Coach
Trevor Francis, International PRAT

Reality is the only way you can increase the tax take from the wealthy is to increase their profits...that increases the tax you take from them. As for elitism, as a societal problem I agree. I often rally against policies that insulate those with money from failure...it is directly against meritocracy.

Still, this said, for people to invest they need confidence that they will receive a return. Unless you have some world government allocating tax policy any other approach is irrational.

Socialism, on an economic front, has failed pretty much everywhere it has been used.....As usual those who suffer the most are the poor. I've looked into the Nordic countries where it has half worked and anyone who does that and then tells you it can be just repeated here is directly lying to you.

There are problems with it but it does also produce a better society in general. However, once you look into it you can see that it can't be repeated here.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Jun 2017 12.45pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Realistically, I think you can tax the wealthy more, but not much more, unless they're seeing some kind of return for that taxation - Which I think is fair. The issue isn't really that we pay tax, but what kind of return we get from that tax.

For example, if you could improve education to a state where by the difference between public and private education was minimal, then I think you'd find wealthier people and higher earners could live with that, as it would dismiss the need to provide private education for their children etc. Similarly with Health care etc.

And there in lies the element of taxation that is often missed, people aren't so much p*ssed off with paying taxes, but with what they're getting in return for their investment.

We can't even get the f**king bins collected once a week, or have enough pens and pencils for kids in school, but then seem to be able to pay some rather excessive expensives for MPs or find money for assorted 'government vanity projects'

There is money for a new nuclear submarine project for defence, but we have cuts in policing when the primary area of defence threat to UK citizens is low scale random acts of terrorism against citizens.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Its only justified if it works and they buy into it. For anything to be really effective it has to work in reality rather than theory.

So if the case is that you can raise more revenue from cutting corporation tax, then cutting corporation tax is justified.

Similarly, if you can raise it and reasonable generate a steady increased revenue, then you should raise it.

Ideological answers, and distorting stats and data to support an ideological view, demeans us all.

Personally, I believe that the goal of government in terms of revenue should be to move towards provision being 'fairly' attributed as a percentage from all members of society, without exception, as a percentage.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

The chancellor is running out of avenues where he can collect tax which is why he attempted to reign in the self-employed.

Now the burden of tax should be falling on those able to carry it in other words those who actually have the money.

So the govt. having penalised the 'just getting by' and the poor since the crash may now have to turn to their own supporters and donors, corporations and the wealthy.

They have enjoyed the years since the financial crisis making little or no contribution to the country at the expense of the many who have and whose outlook is worse not better.

You just aren't addressing the realities.

As a percentage those with money already do pay a lot more than anybody else. I don't disagree that they should pay more than those with less.

However fantasy economics which push the idea that you can force people to pay tax without a direct incentive for it....that's just lying and giving false hope to the poor. That's a problem I have with some progressives who are intelligent enough to know the reality.

Robin Hood wasn't as advertised in reality....In fact the whole 'Robin Hood' allegory works quite well....A simplistic myth that probably has a tiny basis in truth that become totally romantised.

What matters is what works. That's when you genuinely help people.....not by selling them false cures that are doomed to fail and then finger pointing at others.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Jun 2017 1.44pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Are you a tax expert? Simpler yes, lower no.

Who's suggesting that there is no incentive to pay taxes? That's ludicrous. Other countries accept the need to pay taxes and that the returns are in the shape of social security, healthcare, education, public goods. All of these things improve society and make it a better place to live and work.

I have no idea why you persist with the idea that tax and public spending are negatives and policies to improve inequality and improve public services are doomed to fail.

It doesn't matter how I perceive it. It doesn't matter how you perceive it. What matters is what the effect of the policies are. Is more money raised or less....Is it more effective in the long term or not?

I have zero problems with improving infrastructure and public services. What I have a problem with are selling fantasy methods for doing it. I don't think they are honest.

People do not pay tax willingly if they can avoid it. For me to have to say this is what is ridiculous. If you want to actually improve tax take you should look to improve profitability as your first port of call.

If you are going to attempt to sell any other method then first tell me how you are going to force people to keep their money here and invest? People with money tend to be jealous with it....that's why they have it.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)