|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On January 31 2017 02:46 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 01:28 bardtown wrote:
If you force high taxes onto those billionaires you don't gain money, you lose it because they simply move to somewhere with better rates. The politics of tax is all about finding an optimum - getting as much money as possible - but that does not necessarily mean enforcing high taxes. So when the Tories cut the highest rate of tax they do so to increase revenue. Ugh. As an American that's had to live through this in the '00s, and probably very shortly from now, I implore you not to believe this nonsense. Across the pond it's called "trickle-down economics" and the "Laffer curve", and it's wildly discredited--primarily because most billionaires keep most of their wealth in stocks and real estate, and there's no way to avoid the taxes on those by emigration. (You can avoid them using loopholes in taxes however, but I'm assuming we're talking about whatever happens after those loopholes are closed.) Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 17:27 bardtown wrote:
It's just basic economics. The only reason multinationals HQ in Ireland is because of its low tax rates. That's why the Irish govt. are so upset about the EU ruling. Until you create a global authoritarian regime you will never be able to stop rich businesses/individuals from finding somewhere with low tax rates, because there will always be nations that want to attract them. So your argument is that the egregious legalized tax evasion done by lots of international corps (e.g. via the "Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich") is a *good thing* because we're at least skimming 2% off them? Poppycock. Apple and Google and Intel (et al.) aren't going to stop doing business in Europe because they have to pay 12% taxes instead of 2%.
The EU is teetering on the edge of the abyss even as is. Imagine the consequences of another attack on French soil, for example. Crippling the economic models of its member states (multiple eastern countries are moving into this niche now too) will only accelerate the disintegration process. The EU wants completely centralised tax controls, but it is never going to happen. Much less at a global level.
That's not to say you shouldn't tie up the loopholes in your domestic policies, but most governments are shy of doing that too aggressively and losing investment. The benefits of attracting multinationals are not limited to tax receipts. They facilitate all sorts of economic development. It would not be unreasonable to consider a company like Amazon as almost being infrastructure these days. Anyone throwing around 'trickle down economics doesn't work' as though this is a fact is being overly simplistic and stubbornly ignoring the success of highly capitalist countries.
|
On January 31 2017 03:34 bardtown wrote:
The EU is teetering on the edge of the abyss even as is. Imagine the consequences of another attack on French soil, for example. Crippling the economic models of its member states (multiple eastern countries are moving into this niche now too) will only accelerate the disintegration process. The EU wants completely centralised tax controls, but it is never going to happen. Much less at a global level.
Like I said, I disagree with the premise that you need a globalized tax agency in order to pinch the pennies out of the super-wealthy evaders. Perhaps you can name some examples in recent history of increasing the tax on the super-wealthy causing "crippling" economic effects?
On January 31 2017 03:34 bardtown wrote:
That's not to say you shouldn't tie up the loopholes in your domestic policies, but most governments are shy of doing that too aggressively and losing investment. The benefits of attracting multinationals are not limited to tax receipts. They facilitate all sorts of economic development. It would not be unreasonable to consider a company like Amazon as almost being infrastructure these days. Anyone throwing around 'trickle down economics doesn't work' as though this is a fact is being overly simplistic and stubbornly ignoring the success of highly capitalist countries.
When we talk about those multinational corps that are "headquartered" in Ireland (Facebook, Apple, Google), the only physical presence they have there is a few dozen lawyers. All of the manufacturing is done in Asia, all of the brainwork is done in the USA. No real big loss to you Europeans if they decide to move their legal HQs back to America.
|
Just tax stuff where its earned, i don't get how this is somehow hard or unrealistic.
HQs shouldn't matter, you just tax where the stuff is sold/cashed in.
|
On January 31 2017 03:43 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 03:34 bardtown wrote:
The EU is teetering on the edge of the abyss even as is. Imagine the consequences of another attack on French soil, for example. Crippling the economic models of its member states (multiple eastern countries are moving into this niche now too) will only accelerate the disintegration process. The EU wants completely centralised tax controls, but it is never going to happen. Much less at a global level. Like I said, I disagree with the premise that you need a globalized tax agency in order to pinch the pennies out of the super-wealthy evaders. Perhaps you can name some examples in recent history of increasing the tax on the super-wealthy causing "crippling" economic effects? Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 03:34 bardtown wrote:
That's not to say you shouldn't tie up the loopholes in your domestic policies, but most governments are shy of doing that too aggressively and losing investment. The benefits of attracting multinationals are not limited to tax receipts. They facilitate all sorts of economic development. It would not be unreasonable to consider a company like Amazon as almost being infrastructure these days. Anyone throwing around 'trickle down economics doesn't work' as though this is a fact is being overly simplistic and stubbornly ignoring the success of highly capitalist countries. When we talk about those multinational corps that are "headquartered" in Ireland (Facebook, Apple, Google), the only physical presence they have there is a few dozen lawyers. All of the manufacturing is done in Asia, all of the brainwork is done in the USA. No real big loss to you Europeans if they decide to move their legal HQs back to America.
Now your hoping for another terrorist attack in the EU? To cause its' downfall; to somehow justify your Brexit? You repulse me.
It doesn't matter where those companies manufacture their products, they sell them in the EU and therefore could pay tax on that revenue. Oh and all those companies have huge HQs in Ireland, not just a team of lawyers.
It doesn't matter if there is another 10 attacks, unless they are done by EU migrants it won't cause the EU to dissipitate. All little England has done from leaving is united the rest of the continent. And of course now we don't have to listen to your right wing elitist government using its' veto on anything that would close tax loopholes, increase transparency, increase basic workers rights, basically anything that the tories disdain. So thanks. Make sure you publicise how great your US-UK relationship is, I'm sure it will be very even- Americans are known for their generosity in trade deals, rofl.
|
I don't think you responded to the right person... The only response to me in there is "Oh and all those companies have huge HQs in Ireland, not just a team of lawyers." But I disagree with that. Like I said, the 'hardware' is done in Asia and the 'software' is done in the USA. Those multinats with Irish HQs don't have much there except lawyers.
|
On January 31 2017 02:46 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 01:28 bardtown wrote:
If you force high taxes onto those billionaires you don't gain money, you lose it because they simply move to somewhere with better rates. The politics of tax is all about finding an optimum - getting as much money as possible - but that does not necessarily mean enforcing high taxes. So when the Tories cut the highest rate of tax they do so to increase revenue. Ugh. As an American that's had to live through this in the '00s, and probably very shortly from now, I implore you not to believe this nonsense. Across the pond it's called "trickle-down economics" and the "Laffer curve", and it's wildly discredited--primarily because most billionaires keep most of their wealth in stocks and real estate, and there's no way to avoid the taxes on those by emigration. (You can avoid them using loopholes in taxes however, but I'm assuming we're talking about whatever happens after those loopholes are closed.) Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 17:27 bardtown wrote:
It's just basic economics. The only reason multinationals HQ in Ireland is because of its low tax rates. That's why the Irish govt. are so upset about the EU ruling. Until you create a global authoritarian regime you will never be able to stop rich businesses/individuals from finding somewhere with low tax rates, because there will always be nations that want to attract them. So your argument is that the egregious legalized tax evasion done by lots of international corps (e.g. via the "Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich") is a *good thing* because we're at least skimming 2% off them? Poppycock. Apple and Google and Intel (et al.) aren't going to stop doing business in Europe because they have to pay 12% taxes instead of 2%.
Trickle down economics is 'discredited' because it's incredibly vague. It doesn't really mean anything. It's the knee jerk reaction of some on the left whenever they hear tax cut. The laffer curve isn't wildy discredited, it's wildy debated and disputed. It's a difficult theory though since the laffer curve most likely changes depending on the circumstances. Income taxes in the US are sufficiently low though that lowering the taxes won't increase revenue. In some European countries it might be different.
|
On January 31 2017 03:47 Velr wrote:
Just tax stuff where its earned, i don't get how this is somehow hard or unrealistic.
HQs shouldn't matter, you just tax where the stuff is sold/cashed in.
Because what do you base your tax on? Revenue? Well that's nice of you, I'm a company that sells high margin low volume products, and makes 50% margin on my sales, so you're taxing my £1m revenue at 5% and I can deal with that.
My neighbour? Oh, he makes 5% margin but sold £10m, and gets taxed at 5%, so now he's paying 10x the tax despite making the same profits. Nice.
Or do you tax (as we do) based on profits? Well, that's where the whole issue arises which makes it hard and unrealistic, because I "pay" money to another company owned by the same people for using their brand, and buying their products to resell, so my profits are much lower than the overall company products because every division needs to make a return, which is also reasonable for a functional country and to reflect the value add from each area. The issue which this causes in the real world is that companies don't price these intercompany transactions on a real world level and base the companies in low tax jurisdictions.
So pray tell how does your "super easy" taxation based on sale location work, exactly?
|
On January 31 2017 04:43 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 02:46 LightSpectra wrote:On January 30 2017 01:28 bardtown wrote:
If you force high taxes onto those billionaires you don't gain money, you lose it because they simply move to somewhere with better rates. The politics of tax is all about finding an optimum - getting as much money as possible - but that does not necessarily mean enforcing high taxes. So when the Tories cut the highest rate of tax they do so to increase revenue. Ugh. As an American that's had to live through this in the '00s, and probably very shortly from now, I implore you not to believe this nonsense. Across the pond it's called "trickle-down economics" and the "Laffer curve", and it's wildly discredited--primarily because most billionaires keep most of their wealth in stocks and real estate, and there's no way to avoid the taxes on those by emigration. (You can avoid them using loopholes in taxes however, but I'm assuming we're talking about whatever happens after those loopholes are closed.) On January 30 2017 17:27 bardtown wrote:
It's just basic economics. The only reason multinationals HQ in Ireland is because of its low tax rates. That's why the Irish govt. are so upset about the EU ruling. Until you create a global authoritarian regime you will never be able to stop rich businesses/individuals from finding somewhere with low tax rates, because there will always be nations that want to attract them. So your argument is that the egregious legalized tax evasion done by lots of international corps (e.g. via the "Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich") is a *good thing* because we're at least skimming 2% off them? Poppycock. Apple and Google and Intel (et al.) aren't going to stop doing business in Europe because they have to pay 12% taxes instead of 2%. Trickle down economics is 'discredited' because it's incredibly vague. It doesn't really mean anything. It's the knee jerk reaction of some on the left whenever they hear tax cut. The laffer curve isn't wildy discredited, it's wildy debated and disputed. It's a difficult theory though since the laffer curve most likely changes depending on the circumstances. Income taxes in the US are sufficiently low though that lowering the taxes won't increase revenue. In some European countries it might be different.
"Trickle-down economics" usually refers to the practice of lowering taxes on extremely wealthy individuals and corporations, with the justification that it will result in an increase in quality-of-life for the poor/middle classes due to a healthier economy overall. Except that never happens. QOL stays about the same or decreases, whereas the wealth gap widens. It happened with Reagan, with Thatcher, with George W. Bush, and it's gonna happen again with Trump.
The "Laffer curve" is not nonsense per se, since there's some truth in that tax revenues start to decrease once taxes reach a certain point. But in application it's just voodoo. Nobody knows where exactly the curve changes direction. During the three aforementioned neoliberal administrations, the government's tax revenues decreased as a result of the tax cuts. However many right-wingers still peddle the myth that upper-bracket taxes are repressing the government's budget.
|
Market doesn't make sense sometimes. How the fuck is the pound growing when May announced hard Brexit? How is the market calmer? I understand it's less uncertainty, but how is hard Brexit better than a little uncertainty?!
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Market trends basically follow the paranoid and often schizophrenic superstitions of people with money. Don't look to make too much sense of it.
|
A Land Value Tax is probably the most fair and effective system of taxation out there.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well there is strong theoretical and empirical support for the effect size of tax on investment decisions. or at any rate, it's strong consensus that lowering tax on capital would get you higher investment.(see e.g. http://web.stanford.edu/~rehall/Tax-Policy-AER-June-1967.pdf )
although stuff like dividend tax rate cuts have little positive effect. http://www.nber.org/papers/w21003 so the details really matter about what kind of tax or tax cut helps investment.
personal tax rate is a different matter.
|
Goddamn it bardtown (this is not ad hominem i am sure we know who are regular posters here by now lol), i truly dont follow here that often so i am not good at replying post. Long story short, it is irrelevant that UK go back to work with whatever commonwealth countries or countries with cultural/historical linkage, the point is that I just keep seeing you wanting to go back and become the great sun never sets britain empire again. But you simply don't just become 'the best' just because you decided you are not happy with you being not the best anymore lol.
On January 31 2017 07:33 Shield wrote:
Market doesn't make sense sometimes. How the fuck is the pound growing when May announced hard Brexit? How is the market calmer? I understand it's less uncertainty, but how is hard Brexit better than a little uncertainty?!
Market is never impacted by logical rationals, but emotions.
However, I am betting that there are some germans/americans playing some game in this gbp to euro, keep buying so far since 2 weeks ago to maintain that bubble, and then they will sell mad at some point (the tipping point would be near court ruling on /triggering article 50) and then it will crash so hard. Whether it will recover then there is another story that is irrelevant to the actual impact of brexit to the country. Market is just a game of the rich.
|
All the currency market is, even more so than stocks and bonds. Is signalling plus buy/sell. So if, for whatever reason, there is no activity then it shall be fine. "lets go SNP" apparently the replacement of labour wahoo
|
On January 31 2017 08:18 BurningSera wrote:Goddamn it bardtown (this is not ad hominem i am sure we know who are regular posters here by now lol), i truly dont follow here that often so i am not good at replying post. Long story short, it is irrelevant that UK go back to work with whatever commonwealth countries or countries with cultural/historical linkage, the point is that I just keep seeing you wanting to go back and become the great sun never sets britain empire again. But you simply don't just become 'the best' just because you decided you are not happy with you being not the best anymore lol. Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 07:33 Shield wrote:
Market doesn't make sense sometimes. How the fuck is the pound growing when May announced hard Brexit? How is the market calmer? I understand it's less uncertainty, but how is hard Brexit better than a little uncertainty?! Market is never impacted by logical rationals, but emotions. However, I am betting that there are some germans/americans playing some game in this gbp to euro, keep buying so far since 2 weeks ago to maintain that bubble, and then they will sell mad at some point (the tipping point would be near court ruling on /triggering article 50) and then it will crash so hard. Whether it will recover then there is another story that is irrelevant to the actual impact of brexit to the country. Market is just a game of the rich.
I don't really understand your point. I don't want an empire. On the other hand a lot of Europeans seem to have bought into the whole 'We're irrelevant on the world stage unless we're together' anxiety. That simply doesn't apply to the UK, France or Germany. Especially not to the UK.
Indicators have been pointing to hard Brexit for a long time, so the markets were well hedged. They got the parliamentary votes they wanted, too.
|
On January 31 2017 04:55 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 04:43 RvB wrote:On January 31 2017 02:46 LightSpectra wrote:On January 30 2017 01:28 bardtown wrote:
If you force high taxes onto those billionaires you don't gain money, you lose it because they simply move to somewhere with better rates. The politics of tax is all about finding an optimum - getting as much money as possible - but that does not necessarily mean enforcing high taxes. So when the Tories cut the highest rate of tax they do so to increase revenue. Ugh. As an American that's had to live through this in the '00s, and probably very shortly from now, I implore you not to believe this nonsense. Across the pond it's called "trickle-down economics" and the "Laffer curve", and it's wildly discredited--primarily because most billionaires keep most of their wealth in stocks and real estate, and there's no way to avoid the taxes on those by emigration. (You can avoid them using loopholes in taxes however, but I'm assuming we're talking about whatever happens after those loopholes are closed.) On January 30 2017 17:27 bardtown wrote:
It's just basic economics. The only reason multinationals HQ in Ireland is because of its low tax rates. That's why the Irish govt. are so upset about the EU ruling. Until you create a global authoritarian regime you will never be able to stop rich businesses/individuals from finding somewhere with low tax rates, because there will always be nations that want to attract them. So your argument is that the egregious legalized tax evasion done by lots of international corps (e.g. via the "Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich") is a *good thing* because we're at least skimming 2% off them? Poppycock. Apple and Google and Intel (et al.) aren't going to stop doing business in Europe because they have to pay 12% taxes instead of 2%. Trickle down economics is 'discredited' because it's incredibly vague. It doesn't really mean anything. It's the knee jerk reaction of some on the left whenever they hear tax cut. The laffer curve isn't wildy discredited, it's wildy debated and disputed. It's a difficult theory though since the laffer curve most likely changes depending on the circumstances. Income taxes in the US are sufficiently low though that lowering the taxes won't increase revenue. In some European countries it might be different. "Trickle-down economics" usually refers to the practice of lowering taxes on extremely wealthy individuals and corporations, with the justification that it will result in an increase in quality-of-life for the poor/middle classes due to a healthier economy overall. Except that never happens. QOL stays about the same or decreases, whereas the wealth gap widens. It happened with Reagan, with Thatcher, with George W. Bush, and it's gonna happen again with Trump. The "Laffer curve" is not nonsense per se, since there's some truth in that tax revenues start to decrease once taxes reach a certain point. But in application it's just voodoo. Nobody knows where exactly the curve changes direction. During the three aforementioned neoliberal administrations, the government's tax revenues decreased as a result of the tax cuts. However many right-wingers still peddle the myth that upper-bracket taxes are repressing the government's budget.
A distinction has to be made between extremely wealthy individuals and corporations. The corporate tax is very damaging. I made a post about it earlier if you want to see my point of view on it.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/471672-european-politico-economics-qa-mega-thread?page=645#12897
To summarize: It's bad for capital investment and R&D. Half of the corporate tax is paid by labour (lower wages for employees) and even the part which is paid for by shareholders is not necessarily good for the common man since a lot of big investors are pension funds/ sovereign wealth funds/ life insurers. A better alternative would be property taxes since those are progressive too.
Lowering income taxes on the rich will probably cause some more growth which benefits the poor and middle class. I agree though that if you want to help the poor and middle class it makes sense to reduce their tax burden instead.
There's a big difference between the US and Europe in tax rates though. In the US the tax burden is way lower so I agree that using the Laffer curve makes no sense. In Europe there's certainly a case to be made that reducing the top tax rate will increase or at least not decrease tax revenue by a lot. I found an article from the LSE about the top tax rate in the UK if you're interested.
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/EA029.pdf
|
Property taxes need to be considered very carefully. The concept of a 'mansion tax' was a key Labour/Lib Dem policy before Corbyn. Initially the idea was to tax properties worth over £1 million. Unfortunately that includes two bed flats in London and the cottages of little old ladies in pretty villages. They since changed it to £2 million but it's still essentially a tax on aspiration and, as far as I'm concerned at least, completely contrary to British values. Taxing people who own lots of property that isn't for personal use could work (model it), but don't dissuade people from aspiring to better themselves or building attractive or innovative properties.
A basic principle that is often neglected is that inequality - providing that it is not too extreme - is a powerful engine for competition and innovation.
|
On January 31 2017 04:44 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 03:47 Velr wrote:
Just tax stuff where its earned, i don't get how this is somehow hard or unrealistic.
HQs shouldn't matter, you just tax where the stuff is sold/cashed in. Because what do you base your tax on? Revenue? Well that's nice of you, I'm a company that sells high margin low volume products, and makes 50% margin on my sales, so you're taxing my £1m revenue at 5% and I can deal with that. My neighbour? Oh, he makes 5% margin but sold £10m, and gets taxed at 5%, so now he's paying 10x the tax despite making the same profits. Nice. Or do you tax (as we do) based on profits? Well, that's where the whole issue arises which makes it hard and unrealistic, because I "pay" money to another company owned by the same people for using their brand, and buying their products to resell, so my profits are much lower than the overall company products because every division needs to make a return, which is also reasonable for a functional country and to reflect the value add from each area. The issue which this causes in the real world is that companies don't price these intercompany transactions on a real world level and base the companies in low tax jurisdictions. So pray tell how does your "super easy" taxation based on sale location work, exactly?
wtf are you talking about, you obviously tax gross profit. It doesn't matter what your variables are. It is your sales - VC - FC.
You will already pay tax based on your example. It is more about taxing your supplier.
I don't really understand your point. I don't want an empire. On the other hand a lot of Europeans seem to have bought into the whole 'We're irrelevant on the world stage unless we're together' anxiety. That simply doesn't apply to the UK, France or Germany. Especially not to the UK.
yes actually this is exactly the entire point that you fail to understand. The BRIC countries plus the US and even eventually Canada, just simply are stronger by themselves. It's nothing to do with anxiety, it's more about basic analysis. England is not worth anything anymore, you do not make anything you have 50million consumer market and without London I don't understand where this bravado comes from. Everyone is proud of their country and heritage but you take it a step too far into entire delusion. But then it is what's expected from a despicable torry who spouts idiocies that they clearly have obtained from either their parents or grandparents or that they themselves are 45+. Some times I wish the world would speed up so you could just see how blatantly stupid you have been. I mean India>UK right now. When Scotland and NI leave, GL with that.
|
On January 31 2017 18:07 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 04:55 LightSpectra wrote:On January 31 2017 04:43 RvB wrote:On January 31 2017 02:46 LightSpectra wrote:On January 30 2017 01:28 bardtown wrote:
If you force high taxes onto those billionaires you don't gain money, you lose it because they simply move to somewhere with better rates. The politics of tax is all about finding an optimum - getting as much money as possible - but that does not necessarily mean enforcing high taxes. So when the Tories cut the highest rate of tax they do so to increase revenue. Ugh. As an American that's had to live through this in the '00s, and probably very shortly from now, I implore you not to believe this nonsense. Across the pond it's called "trickle-down economics" and the "Laffer curve", and it's wildly discredited--primarily because most billionaires keep most of their wealth in stocks and real estate, and there's no way to avoid the taxes on those by emigration. (You can avoid them using loopholes in taxes however, but I'm assuming we're talking about whatever happens after those loopholes are closed.) On January 30 2017 17:27 bardtown wrote:
It's just basic economics. The only reason multinationals HQ in Ireland is because of its low tax rates. That's why the Irish govt. are so upset about the EU ruling. Until you create a global authoritarian regime you will never be able to stop rich businesses/individuals from finding somewhere with low tax rates, because there will always be nations that want to attract them. So your argument is that the egregious legalized tax evasion done by lots of international corps (e.g. via the "Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich") is a *good thing* because we're at least skimming 2% off them? Poppycock. Apple and Google and Intel (et al.) aren't going to stop doing business in Europe because they have to pay 12% taxes instead of 2%. Trickle down economics is 'discredited' because it's incredibly vague. It doesn't really mean anything. It's the knee jerk reaction of some on the left whenever they hear tax cut. The laffer curve isn't wildy discredited, it's wildy debated and disputed. It's a difficult theory though since the laffer curve most likely changes depending on the circumstances. Income taxes in the US are sufficiently low though that lowering the taxes won't increase revenue. In some European countries it might be different. "Trickle-down economics" usually refers to the practice of lowering taxes on extremely wealthy individuals and corporations, with the justification that it will result in an increase in quality-of-life for the poor/middle classes due to a healthier economy overall. Except that never happens. QOL stays about the same or decreases, whereas the wealth gap widens. It happened with Reagan, with Thatcher, with George W. Bush, and it's gonna happen again with Trump. The "Laffer curve" is not nonsense per se, since there's some truth in that tax revenues start to decrease once taxes reach a certain point. But in application it's just voodoo. Nobody knows where exactly the curve changes direction. During the three aforementioned neoliberal administrations, the government's tax revenues decreased as a result of the tax cuts. However many right-wingers still peddle the myth that upper-bracket taxes are repressing the government's budget. A distinction has to be made between extremely wealthy individuals and corporations. The corporate tax is very damaging. I made a post about it earlier if you want to see my point of view on it. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/471672-european-politico-economics-qa-mega-thread?page=645#12897To summarize: It's bad for capital investment and R&D. Half of the corporate tax is paid by labour (lower wages for employees) and even the part which is paid for by shareholders is not necessarily good for the common man since a lot of big investors are pension funds/ sovereign wealth funds/ life insurers. A better alternative would be property taxes since those are progressive too. Lowering income taxes on the rich will probably cause some more growth which benefits the poor and middle class. I agree though that if you want to help the poor and middle class it makes sense to reduce their tax burden instead.
Google, Apple and Microsoft are each sitting with about $100-200 billion in raw cash, from sheer low-taxed profits; if increased corporate taxes results in them lowering wages or increasing prices, you can bet they're full of shit and just using the taxes as an excuse.
|
On January 31 2017 22:01 MyTHicaL wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 04:44 Lonyo wrote:On January 31 2017 03:47 Velr wrote:
Just tax stuff where its earned, i don't get how this is somehow hard or unrealistic.
HQs shouldn't matter, you just tax where the stuff is sold/cashed in. Because what do you base your tax on? Revenue? Well that's nice of you, I'm a company that sells high margin low volume products, and makes 50% margin on my sales, so you're taxing my £1m revenue at 5% and I can deal with that. My neighbour? Oh, he makes 5% margin but sold £10m, and gets taxed at 5%, so now he's paying 10x the tax despite making the same profits. Nice. Or do you tax (as we do) based on profits? Well, that's where the whole issue arises which makes it hard and unrealistic, because I "pay" money to another company owned by the same people for using their brand, and buying their products to resell, so my profits are much lower than the overall company products because every division needs to make a return, which is also reasonable for a functional country and to reflect the value add from each area. The issue which this causes in the real world is that companies don't price these intercompany transactions on a real world level and base the companies in low tax jurisdictions. So pray tell how does your "super easy" taxation based on sale location work, exactly? wtf are you talking about, you obviously tax gross profit. It doesn't matter what your variables are. It is your sales - VC - FC. You will already pay tax based on your example. It is more about taxing your supplier. Show nested quote +
I don't really understand your point. I don't want an empire. On the other hand a lot of Europeans seem to have bought into the whole 'We're irrelevant on the world stage unless we're together' anxiety. That simply doesn't apply to the UK, France or Germany. Especially not to the UK.
yes actually this is exactly the entire point that you fail to understand. The BRIC countries plus the US and even eventually Canada, just simply are stronger by themselves. It's nothing to do with anxiety, it's more about basic analysis. England is not worth anything anymore, you do not make anything you have 50million consumer market and without London I don't understand where this bravado comes from. Everyone is proud of their country and heritage but you take it a step too far into entire delusion. But then it is what's expected from a despicable torry who spouts idiocies that they clearly have obtained from either their parents or grandparents or that they themselves are 45+. Some times I wish the world would speed up so you could just see how blatantly stupid you have been. I mean India>UK right now. When Scotland and NI leave, GL with that.
Even if India has overtaken the UK (tenuous assertion using non-standard GDP calculations), this has been expected for years. All the BRIICs and even Canada have the ingredients needed to overtake the UK eventually. I certainly hope the relative strength of Canada and other friendly countries increases. Regardless, the UK is still more than capable of holding its own.
Fastest growth of developed economies.
https://www.ft.com/content/1666262a-e39e-11e6-8405-9e5580d6e5fb
Projected to be the largest economy in Europe by 2030. If you look you'll see India is 3rd here.
https://www.cebr.com/reports/world-economic-league-table-2015/
UK assessed as 2nd most powerful country by a European think tank. A better survey than most which just count assets and neglect to account for funding/technology/operational capability.
http://www.europeangeostrategy.org/2014/01/european-geostrategy-audit-major-powers-worlds-fifteen-most-powerful-countries-2014/
![[image loading]](http://www.europeangeostrategy.org/themestatic/uploads/2014/01/15-Major-Powers-text.png)
Second on soft power rankings.
http://softpower30.portland-communications.com/ranking/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
