to ask how you would stop companies and investors leaving the UK?

Much as many people, including me, would like the UK to rejoin the EU, you're correct when you say that this is unlikely to happen any day soon - and I don't think it will happen in the next 20 years if ever.

As for looking globally - remember, the other trading nations and blocs are also looking to trade globally. When the salespeople and politicians from the UK turn up in Africa, Asia or wherever looking to sell British products and services, they join the queue of other salespeople from the USA, Canada, China, the BRIC countries, the Pacific countries etc. all trying to sell the same thing - and assuming that there is already someone supplying that product, the newcomers also have to displace the incumbant supplier.

There is still no sign of the promised queue of countries lining up to do business with the UK - instead, it is the UK that has gone cap-in-hand around the globe signing deals such as Truss' appalling deal with Australia.

All those saying rejoin the EU are you deluded? Do you really think they would give us any good terms after leaving? We would get nothing from them

we made our bed, now we need to look globally

You, the OP and others seem to conflate where a company has a stock exchange listing with where the company pays tax on its profits.

Companies do not necessarily pay tax where they are listed, nor where they do most of their business. Boots (the retail chemist) is part of Walgreen Boots Alliance and listed on Nasdaq in New York, but pays tax in Switzerland (and has done for 20 years).

Investors do not necessarily have to be located in the country where the company is listed or where it does most of its business - in fact, one of the major criticisms of the UK economy is that many companies are largely owned by overseas investors, which means that the dividends paid to investors represent money leaving the UK economy. For example, the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System owns almost one-third of Thames Water, so the water bills of 15 million consumers (one-quarter of England's population) are paying towards the pensions of half a million Canadian public sector workers rather than being recirculated or invested in the UK economy.

Maybe just maybe that was due to COVID pandemic

I was answering the OP and YOU who talked about Osbourne and him having no choice.

the state of the country is perhaps one reason why people, across all groups, have left the UK... the last 14 years of the Tories cannot be ignored, no matter how much you'd like to blame Labour for all our ills.

Taxes went to the highest pre war levels under the Tories, not Labour but apparently that was all ok, what now isn't OK is that Labour raise some taxes, thats now sacrilege.

so what? why is this relevant to the question of how to stop companies and investors leaving now?

It seems that a lot of people on this thread actually want them to leave

Osbourne carried on with Austerity, when investing, at very low interest rates would have been the sensible thing, he didn't because the Tories wanted to destroy the public sector, they achieved that, whilst increasing the tax take.

You mention the Welfare state? that ballooned under the Tories, inc in work benefits.

Labour aren't responsible for any of that, thats down to the Cons only but it is Labour who have to deal with it.

Amazon because of it's size massive can invest a lot in R&D

Amazon and Starbucks (amongst others) have been responsible for the decline of hundreds of thousands of small businesses in the UK. High Streets have been hollowed out as independent businesses have gone to the wall. Family-run cafes have been replaced by the likes of Starbucks and McDonalds.

As these small businesses have closed their staff have lost their jobs, as have the workers in the supply chain, so the revenues and employment generated by Amazon, Starbucks etc. is not without a cost elsewhere.

Would it be such a loss to the economy if businesses like Amazon and Starbucks exited the country? Would it really nuke the economy? There are still countries in Europe that are not in thrall to these companies. Countries where family-run or independent business thrive, where local businesses have upped their game and provide on-line shopping alongside their bricks-and-mortar locations - and most importantly, where the local businesses pay local taxes instead of using clever accounting to avoid paying tax.

I agree that taxing revenue is not the way to go, but there are other ways of making the playing field a bit more level. For example higher business rates on the warehouses of on-line retailers; limits to the size, number and location of certain businesses; the requirement for businesses to be licensed (and the staff qualified); tightening of the loopholes around transfer pricing and "creative" accounting and licensing.

A banker friend of a friend left London to New York because of the tax changes and the non-dom stuff being scrapped. At some point you cannot just take take take take.

When the overall level of wealth decreases it'll be the middle earners who'll become the next target in all probability. Will be interesting to see if people are prepared to then do what they've been clamoring for others to do.

Your reply only serves to illustrate how much hate there is for high earners. Would you stay here to disproportionately support others? I doubt it.

are you deliberate?

businesses were folding all around, there were mass redundancies in private sector, my FTSE Top 10 business laid off several thousands people and we were working 70-80 hours a week for a chance to stay.

Investment tax credit. If they invest their money they get reduced tax

I posted this on another thread which got full a couple of posts later:

Social security spending in Great Britain

In 2025 to 2026 the government is forecast to spend £316.1 billion on the social security system in Great Britain. Total GB welfare spending is forecast to be 10.6% of GDP and 23.5% of the total amount the government spends in 2025 to 2026.

Around 55% of social security expenditure goes to pensioners; in 2025 to 2026 we will spend £174.9 billion on benefits for pensioners in GB. This includes spending on the State Pension which is forecast to be £145.6 billion in 2025 to 2026.

In 2025 to 2026 we will spend £141.2 billion on working age and children welfare. This includes spending on Universal Credit and its predecessors, and non-DWP welfare spending.

In 2025 to 2026 we will spend £75.3 billion on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions, and £35.3 billion on housing benefits.
Guidance and methodology: Benefit expenditure and caseload tables - GOV.UK

So welfare payments are only 4.4bn less that all state pensions.

Only 35% of UC claimants are working.
Proportion of Universal Credit claimants in employment in England | LG Inform

There were 7.5 million people on Universal Credit in January 2025, up from 6.4 million people on Universal Credit in January 2024
Universal Credit statistics, 29 April 2013 to 9 January 2025 - GOV.UK

23.7 million people claimed some combination of DWP benefits in August 2024 (of the 17 benefits included in these statistics). Of these:

• 13.1 million were of State Pension Age (including those in receipt of their State Pension)
• 9.9 million were of Working Age
• 750,000 were under 16 (and in receipt of DLA as a child)

Interesting stats on PIP, incl assessment process
1
Link looks strange, but it's Scottish Gov doc.
Number of disability benefits recipients in the UK is dramatically higher than in Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden - all comparable countries.
"This research has found that extra costs benefits are uncommon in other countries. Indeed, in a New Policy Institute report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, MacInnes et al (2014 – emphasis added) argue that, as far as they are aware: ‘no other European or OECD country […] makes such extensive use of a cash benefit to meet the additional costs of disability.’7 As a result, the sample of countries examined was necessarily constrained – including only countries with broadly comparable benefits. To this end, this report presents an examination of assessment for disability benefits in: Denmark, France, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden. Even in countries where extra-costs disability benefits are offered, their reach is far more limited than in Scotland/UK (see Table 2)."

1

If you spend so much on direct welfare payments and 25% of working age population are economically inactive, your only choice is either to cut services to the bone or to increase taxes until you bleed productive part of society dry.
Proverbial "tax the rich" doesn't work unfortunately.

Most of the job losses were in the public sector caused by austerity.

is it convenient for you to forget about massive job losses? and how many businesses folded?

"No government ever will be able to tackle our services until they tackle welfare state. Labour will continue raising taxes until economy collapses."

The Conservatives held taxes low for their chums and donors and their approach to the welfare state was to under-invest and starve vital services of funds, driving those who could afford it into the arms of the private providers of healthcare, social care, education and housing and leaving everyone else to rot.

Vital utilities such as water were allowed to be used as cash cows and loaded with debt while billions of pounds in salaries, bonuses and dividends were paid to the shareholders and their clever directors.

The Conservatives spent 14 years cutting investment in public services to the point where hospitals, schools, infrastructure, and the justice system are quite literally on the point of collapse.

I am not surprised. London stock exchange is dead. They need to remove the duty for stock absolutely.

The choice was between cutting public services and drastic reduction of welfare. There was no more taxes to take at that stage.

Odd that they managed to double the tax take then. As well as increasing borrowing. It was the perfect time to increase taxes because mortgage rates plummeted and people in work saw their disposable income increase exponentially unless they were canny and continued with their original mortgage payments - there were very few fixed rate products in those days.

The choice was between cutting public services and drastic reduction of welfare. There was no more taxes to take at that stage.

He couldn't cut welfare in that crisis.

Quantitive easening was massive mistake though.

No government ever will be able to tackle our services until they tackle welfare state. Labour will continue raising taxes until economy collapses.

Debt is irrelevant for this specific topic.

Health insurance is, but for high earners it still makes a lot of sense financially to be there rather than here (of course there are other considerations).

Even with sky high insurance costs you keep more of you money and this insurance provides you with pretty high quality service. Here you pay more but stuck with the same NHS and can't get an appointment or have much choice.

And that's the issue - if you're at a low /mid level of course it's better for you here, but if you're successful you better leave. The same applies to businesses.

Osbourne and austerity are at the root cause of most of our problems

He failed to keep up with capital expenditure, increased borrowing, held down wages... all now coming home to roost.

Huge issues with our roads, public buildings, justice system... all on him and subsequent Tory Govt's.
Putting this right will probably never be done, no country held onto Austerity like he did, all to appease the "small state" wing of his party.

His only saving grace is he opposed an EU referendum.