screwed yet agin by the coalition

Excellent posts by CinnabarRed Fri 11-Feb-11 11:09:27 on AIBU thread.

Given up waiting for Peston.....

I do wonder why it's taking Peston so long to come up with his own opinion on this tax. Surely if Monbiot is correct - then Peston only needs to cleanse the Monbiot article of 'gratuitous Tory bashing rhetoric' add in a dash of evidence and blog....

How hard can it be?

Nick Clegg will be 'fixed' by the rich tax evaders before he fixes them! He's not going to be in office for very long so should not worry too much! Clegg has a permanently 'haunted look' has anyone else noticed?

I think Tory bashing is more resepectable than foxhunting; Clugg chose to work for a Tory MP years ago So we do have a Tory Government really.

As a general rule: never lick a governments arse; they will always fart in your face.

Nick Clugg says he will fix the rich tax evaders.

The serious commentators say: "Who will shop them?"

CLeggy may say ex wives and business partners. Dont hold your breath

cheers "Gabby"

Oooh, thanks. Good to know someone else is on the case. Though Private Eye has had some stuff recently about Peston being strangely reluctant to spill the beans - almost as though he was being pressured from above...

I follow Robert Peston on Twitter and he tweeted 48 hours after the article was published -

?@Peston: For those looking for a view on the Monbiot tax article, this is by no means a simple issue. It's going to take a while?

If he comes up with anything - I'll link it.

This is the part I find most concerning:

"Foreign means anywhere. If these proposals go ahead, the UK will be only the second country in the world to allow money that has passed through tax havens to remain untaxed when it gets here. The other is Switzerland."

and

"But that's not the end of it. While big business will be exempt from tax on its foreign branch earnings, it will, amazingly, still be able to claim the expense of funding its foreign branches against tax it pays in the UK."

Conculainey. As long as we are in the EU, I'm afraid you will have to get used to it!
Eight more countries now are looking for for EU memberhip, including Turkey (pop 72 milllion) all in all, millions more can come and 'take your jobs'. As long as they are 'in' you will be out!

Extent of corporate influence on Health policy revealed

I don't think the OP wanted to ToryBash; if she had she'd have been better off starting a thread on how Macdonalds and the babykillers Nestle now draw up the UK government Health policies

"fast and processed food giants and alcohol companies, including McDonald's, PepsiCo, Kellogg's, Mars, Unilever and Diageo, had been asked by the health secretary Andrew Lansley to draw up deals with government to tackle obesity and hazardous drinking."

http://seekingalpha.com/news-article/199554-extent-of-corporate-influence-on-health-policy-revealed-fast-food-and-drink-giants-to-help-draft-strategy-reforms-seen-as-test-case-for-wider-coalition-plans Extent of corporate influence on Health policy revealed

I must admit, at first glance the proposals do seem unfair.

But then I have to ask myself. If I earned £100k abroad and paid income tax at say 10% in the country I earned it in, would I feel it is fair to return to blighty and have to pay the difference here?

And what about the other side of the coin? Lets say I earned said £100k in Denmark and got taxed at 50%, when I return to the UK would the government reimburse me the 10%? What's good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander yes?

But in the current climate I do wonder if the timing is right for such a cut. It does send out all the wrong signals. I'd be more in favour if there was a way to show said money would be encourage UK jobs.

conculainey Unfortunately EU law means we've a level playing field with any EU citizen. As for the ID card versus birth cert thing, I guess this is one advantage with other countries having ID card systems. I'd be in favour of one too. Just not the completely overengineered one which Labour proposed.

PerArdua, 3000 new jobs are to created in Belfast by a Swedish company building wind turbines, almost all the jobs have already been allocated to Lithuanian, Latvian and Polish workers, the whole job application process for these jobs was through an employment agency that is run by foreigners for foreigners but based in Belfast. The foreigners only have to produce an I.D card to get registered with this so called Employment agency but British people have to produce a full birth certificate, a passport or driving licence and something that proves their adress. British citizens have little to no chance of getting the work. The whole system is a joke.

Read this - so depressing. They claim that they have to reform the Forestry Commission as it's "both a regulator and a commercial competitor" (that's the bottom line on why they're flogging the forest - ideological opposition to the Forestry Commission, nothing to do with raising money), but then invite representatives of large corporations advise them on how best to tax large corporations!

What Snorbs said. Plus any new jobs created in the UK are likely to be a. outsourced and b. temporary - as this is the flexible model big business aspires to.

I'm offering you shares in London Bridge at a knock down price btw...

But trickle-down economics will only work for the UK if there is a benefit in putting the new jobs etc in the UK. If, as it appears with this proposed tax change, the benefits will only accrue if the UK companies expand their overseas business, how will that create a trickle-down effect for the UK economy? Or will it just lead to more overseas out-sourcing?

Sorry, I don't get the joke. Just suggesting that when businesses are doing well enough to expand and recruit that generally means better employment prospects.

Chil1234 - do you really believe in 'trickle-down economics'? Cos if you do I've a fantastic investment opportunity for you - prime real estate, water front view on 2 sides, handy for central london...

If you go to the draft bill - here - it says (p72) that this will cost a 'steady state' £100m. So we're getting less taxation, and it's costing that much to implement.

On the Economic Impact statement it says "The primary benefit of this proposal will arise in two sectors: banking, which currently makes greatest use of foreign branches and general insurance where we expect use to increase.

UK multinational groups in the banking sector currently favour a branch structure when setting up businesses offshore. Regulatory changes will allow the insurance sector to do the same. This allows groups in these sectors to make most efficient use of capital held in the UK.

The exemption regime will improve alignment in tax treatment of foreign branches and subsidiaries. The largest benefits will fall to UK owned multinational corporate groups in these sectors.

The proposal is also expected to have a marginal (beneficial) economic impact on oil and gas, which is the other sector operating a significant number of foreign branches. "

So Banking and Oil & Gas companies - that have been so seriously affected by the recession will be the gainers?

"Big society" simply sets a broad picture of a community working together rather than a collection of individuals selfishly doing their own thing.... and gets us away from the 'buy now, someone else will pick up the tab later' feel of the 00's. Public spending cuts mean the country's debts will increase at a slower rate than before. And 'big business' being incentivised to invest and grow means that people like you are more likely to get a job.

hi ongakgak, sorry you are losing your job and hope you find a new one soon.

I think there are always ways to interpret taxation laws that will mean someone takes advantage of them. So you could write an inflammatory piece about lots of tax legislation, including this one tbh.

But the intention behind these reforms wasn't to let people dodge more tax, more to bring different tax rules into line with each other and I seem to remember (though I'd have to look it up) that HMRC didn't believe they would lose out on any revenue with these reforms.

no the way it's been written is inflammatory

the reason branch profit taxation is being reformed is to bring the taxation in line with similar rules for taxation on subsidiary companies in foreign jurisdictions

companies with foreign branches have long complained that they were unfairly prejudiced as subsidiaries in foreign companies could remit funds to their head offices in the UK without paying UK corporation tax but foreign branches could not do the same

this is one of the reforms (along with foreign controlled company reforms) that are being discussed and finalised at the moment

it's a drive to bring into line some of the tax laws (with each other) and to try and keep companies headquartered in the UK

Have you read the comments though?

Look at it carefully - if you paid tax in the UK on UK income, and then earned something else overseas and paid local tax on it, why would you expect to pay more on it as it has already been taxed? Same point applies here surely? I would expect to pay x% local rate on income earned abroad and not pay more on it because I happen to be a Brit.

Lowering corporation tax is much like lowering income tax; people work harder because they keep more of their money surely? You only have to see those advocating salary sacrifice to avoid the 40% rate band, or working less hours to avoid it and keep cb to be aware that higher taxes are a disincentive.

If this attracts more business to the UK and creates more jobs, then isn't that a good thing?