Universal Credit

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Lyons550 Shirley 26 Oct 17 1.31pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle OECD already doing this. Companies being fined for not paying taxes and not paying fines. Problem is no one will then stand up to them and say, OK you're no longer allowed to trade here. Clearly that's the 'Turkeys voting for xmas' bit of my stance....completely agree The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 26 Oct 17 1.31pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

OECD already doing this.

Companies being fined for not paying taxes and not paying fines. Problem is no one will then stand up to them and say, OK you're no longer allowed to trade here.

Clearly that's the 'Turkeys voting for xmas' bit of my stance....completely agree

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 26 Oct 17 1.44pm
Originally posted by npn Wow! If true that would be both radical and daft! No startups would ever get going - lots of them make big losses in the early years, on what may be decent turnovers, also depending on the business area, they may be working on low profit margins. I think the mega-businesses need to be targetted where they are quite clearly taking the p**s, but I don't have the first idea how to do that. Making your tax bill expensive in country A may well make the company not wish to do business there at all (may not, in itself, be a bad thing - maybe more competition on the high street). Isn't it that you can hide profits but not turnover? Obviously its more complex, but that's the basis.
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 26 Oct 17 1.44pm

Originally posted by npn

Wow! If true that would be both radical and daft! No startups would ever get going - lots of them make big losses in the early years, on what may be decent turnovers, also depending on the business area, they may be working on low profit margins.

I think the mega-businesses need to be targetted where they are quite clearly taking the p**s, but I don't have the first idea how to do that. Making your tax bill expensive in country A may well make the company not wish to do business there at all (may not, in itself, be a bad thing - maybe more competition on the high street).

Isn't it that you can hide profits but not turnover?

Obviously its more complex, but that's the basis.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 26 Oct 17 1.45pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 I read that the EU are fed up with tax evasion by companies and are considering taxing on turnover not profit. That would put the cat among the pigeons. That would be mental. Companies legitimately makes losses, so taxing loss making companies could put them out of business, when they might otherwise be able to turn it around.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 26 Oct 17 1.45pm

Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle

Originally posted by steeleye20

I read that the EU are fed up with tax evasion by companies and are considering taxing on turnover not profit.

That would put the cat among the pigeons.

That would be mental. Companies legitimately makes losses, so taxing loss making companies could put them out of business, when they might otherwise be able to turn it around.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 26 Oct 17 1.52pm
Originally posted by npn That's where we differ, I think. 20% of 20K is 4k. 20% of 200K is 40K. The 'rich' already pay far more in tax - increasing the percentage rate is what strikes me as unfair. I like the lower end being tax free, that's fair enough to keep people from poverty and afford a decent standard of living, but to levy higher taxes on greater earnings makes little to no sense to me. It seems like a "you don't need it" approach, which may well be true but is fundamentally not fair. If I choose to work loads of overtime, and the bloke next to me doesn't, why should I take home 60% of my wage while he takes home 80% (for exactly the same work done to the same standard) because I've passed some arbitrary threshold? I may be thrashing myself to save for a deposit on a house, to put a kid through university, or to buy a new kidney for great auntie Doris. If you're earning enough to pay a higher rate of tax you'd be earning more than your colleague, so your hard would would be getting recognised. The system is that only amounts above a threshold are taxed at the higher rate, so everything you make up to that amount is taxed at exactly the same rate as those earning below that amount. Tax isn't a punishment, it's a system whereby we pay in according to our means into a social system that provides us with public services, social security, social care and education. Paying appropriate amounts mean that society as a whole can function and that has a wide reaching benefit to everyone, including the highest earners. Don't forget that 20% tax on �20k means disposable income of �16k, which after housing costs will be almost nothing. 20% tax on �200k would mean disposable income of �160k which, after housing costs is really quite a lot. Taxing that person an additional 10% on the top �100k of their earners say, would still leave them with �150k. Still close enough to 10x what the other bloke has. As a proportion of disposable income tax is a much bigger burden on the lowest earners. Even if housing cost the rich bloke �60k he'd then have �100k and tax would be 40% of that. The poor guy who would be left with, say �4k, his tax is 100% of his disposable income. For some people it will in reality be way over 100%.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 26 Oct 17 1.52pm

Originally posted by npn

That's where we differ, I think.
20% of 20K is 4k.
20% of 200K is 40K.
The 'rich' already pay far more in tax - increasing the percentage rate is what strikes me as unfair.

I like the lower end being tax free, that's fair enough to keep people from poverty and afford a decent standard of living, but to levy higher taxes on greater earnings makes little to no sense to me. It seems like a "you don't need it" approach, which may well be true but is fundamentally not fair.

If I choose to work loads of overtime, and the bloke next to me doesn't, why should I take home 60% of my wage while he takes home 80% (for exactly the same work done to the same standard) because I've passed some arbitrary threshold? I may be thrashing myself to save for a deposit on a house, to put a kid through university, or to buy a new kidney for great auntie Doris.

If you're earning enough to pay a higher rate of tax you'd be earning more than your colleague, so your hard would would be getting recognised.

The system is that only amounts above a threshold are taxed at the higher rate, so everything you make up to that amount is taxed at exactly the same rate as those earning below that amount.

Tax isn't a punishment, it's a system whereby we pay in according to our means into a social system that provides us with public services, social security, social care and education. Paying appropriate amounts mean that society as a whole can function and that has a wide reaching benefit to everyone, including the highest earners.

Don't forget that 20% tax on �20k means disposable income of �16k, which after housing costs will be almost nothing. 20% tax on �200k would mean disposable income of �160k which, after housing costs is really quite a lot. Taxing that person an additional 10% on the top �100k of their earners say, would still leave them with �150k. Still close enough to 10x what the other bloke has. As a proportion of disposable income tax is a much bigger burden on the lowest earners. Even if housing cost the rich bloke �60k he'd then have �100k and tax would be 40% of that. The poor guy who would be left with, say �4k, his tax is 100% of his disposable income. For some people it will in reality be way over 100%.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 26 Oct 17 1.55pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 Isn't it that you can hide profits but not turnover? Obviously its more complex, but that's the basis. You can definitely hide turnover. Treat it as a negative expense and put it in a different part of your balance sheet. You could also have the turnover all going to somewhere offshore and recharge small amounts to the onshore company which employs all the staff and acts as a service company.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 26 Oct 17 1.55pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

Isn't it that you can hide profits but not turnover?

Obviously its more complex, but that's the basis.

You can definitely hide turnover. Treat it as a negative expense and put it in a different part of your balance sheet. You could also have the turnover all going to somewhere offshore and recharge small amounts to the onshore company which employs all the staff and acts as a service company.

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 26 Oct 17 2.07pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle That would be mental. Companies legitimately makes losses, so taxing loss making companies could put them out of business, when they might otherwise be able to turn it around. No I think what happens is this: Large companies and corporations like Apple Amazon etc. make big profits in EU countries and hide them by claiming the profits are made elsewhere. You cannot do this with turnover as you know where the turnover is made for example Germany etc. I think after all legal processes are exhausted said companies just still don't pay up. The idea is an 'equalisation tax' sitting on top of corporation tax so a corporation tax liability would already be established.
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 26 Oct 17 2.07pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

That would be mental. Companies legitimately makes losses, so taxing loss making companies could put them out of business, when they might otherwise be able to turn it around.

No I think what happens is this: Large companies and corporations like Apple Amazon etc. make big profits in EU countries and hide them by claiming the profits are made elsewhere.

You cannot do this with turnover as you know where the turnover is made for example Germany etc.

I think after all legal processes are exhausted said companies just still don't pay up.

The idea is an 'equalisation tax' sitting on top of corporation tax so a corporation tax liability would already be established.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 26 Oct 17 2.25pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 No I think what happens is this: Large companies and corporations like Apple Amazon etc. make big profits in EU countries and hide them by claiming the profits are made elsewhere. You cannot do this with turnover as you know where the turnover is made for example Germany etc. I think after all legal processes are exhausted said companies just still don't pay up. The idea is an 'equalisation tax' sitting on top of corporation tax so a corporation tax liability would already be established. The OECD are already doing is something called Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, which is designed to tackle profit shifting by stopping companies shifting profits from one region to another.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 26 Oct 17 2.25pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

No I think what happens is this: Large companies and corporations like Apple Amazon etc. make big profits in EU countries and hide them by claiming the profits are made elsewhere.

You cannot do this with turnover as you know where the turnover is made for example Germany etc.

I think after all legal processes are exhausted said companies just still don't pay up.

The idea is an 'equalisation tax' sitting on top of corporation tax so a corporation tax liability would already be established.

The OECD are already doing is something called Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, which is designed to tackle profit shifting by stopping companies shifting profits from one region to another.

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 26 Oct 17 2.40pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle If you're earning enough to pay a higher rate of tax you'd be earning more than your colleague, so your hard would would be getting recognised. not earning more base, just doing more overtime (so voluntary). So where is my incentive to come in on Saturday for �120 when Johnny next to me is coming in for �160?
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 26 Oct 17 2.40pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

If you're earning enough to pay a higher rate of tax you'd be earning more than your colleague, so your hard would would be getting recognised.

not earning more base, just doing more overtime (so voluntary). So where is my incentive to come in on Saturday for �120 when Johnny next to me is coming in for �160?

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 26 Oct 17 2.42pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle The system is that only amounts above a threshold are taxed at the higher rate, so everything you make up to that amount is taxed at exactly the same rate as those earning below that amount. I know, but once you breach that threshold, everything you earn is taxed heavier than someone else doing precisely the same job
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 26 Oct 17 2.42pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

The system is that only amounts above a threshold are taxed at the higher rate, so everything you make up to that amount is taxed at exactly the same rate as those earning below that amount.

I know, but once you breach that threshold, everything you earn is taxed heavier than someone else doing precisely the same job

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 26 Oct 17 2.45pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle Tax isn't a punishment, it's a system whereby we pay in according to our means into a social system that provides us with public services, social security, social care and education. Paying appropriate amounts mean that society as a whole can function and that has a wide reaching benefit to everyone, including the highest earners. I agree, we just differ on our definition of an appropriate amount. I think a flat rate is appropriate, and completely fair (whether a chairman of the board or the toilet cleaner, x% of your salary goes to run the country). I'm never going to earn as much as Richard Branson, I accept that, but I see no reason why he should be giving up 60% of everything he makes where I am giving up 40%.
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 26 Oct 17 2.45pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

I agree, we just differ on our definition of an appropriate amount. I think a flat rate is appropriate, and completely fair (whether a chairman of the board or the toilet cleaner, x% of your salary goes to run the country). I'm never going to earn as much as Richard Branson, I accept that, but I see no reason why he should be giving up 60% of everything he makes where I am giving up 40%.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 26 Oct 17 2.47pm
Originally posted by npn not earning more base, just doing more overtime (so voluntary). So where is my incentive to come in on Saturday for �120 when Johnny next to me is coming in for �160? Because Johnny might be a better worker or indeed negotiator of his salary If the dough you earn helps you to live then why bother worrying about others earnings. The bloke over the road has a brand new vogue but I'm not jealous and give up driving because of it. I reckon the politics of envy are at work here. You generally get out what you put in in all situations
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 26 Oct 17 2.47pm

Originally posted by npn

not earning more base, just doing more overtime (so voluntary). So where is my incentive to come in on Saturday for �120 when Johnny next to me is coming in for �160?

Because Johnny might be a better worker or indeed negotiator of his salary
If the dough you earn helps you to live then why bother worrying about others earnings.
The bloke over the road has a brand new vogue but I'm not jealous and give up driving because of it.
I reckon the politics of envy are at work here.
You generally get out what you put in in all situations

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 26 Oct 17 3.00pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle Don't forget that 20% tax on �20k means disposable income of �16k, which after housing costs will be almost nothing. 20% tax on �200k would mean disposable income of �160k which, after housing costs is really quite a lot. You seem to be aiming at some sort of zero sum game where both people end up with similar levels of take home pay regardless. If I get promoted it will involve stress and more hours - in return I want more money. I don't want to then be told "now we're taking a larger chunk of that cash because you have more disposable income than the other guy" - now THAT would be unfair
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 26 Oct 17 3.00pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

You seem to be aiming at some sort of zero sum game where both people end up with similar levels of take home pay regardless.

If I get promoted it will involve stress and more hours - in return I want more money. I don't want to then be told "now we're taking a larger chunk of that cash because you have more disposable income than the other guy" - now THAT would be unfair

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Universal Credit

Site Map

Sponsors