House Price Crash forum: Tory Tax Simplification Manifesto Pledge - House Price Crash forum

Jump to content

powered by
Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Tory Tax Simplification Manifesto Pledge Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   R K 

  • I live on HPC!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20,049
  • Joined: 12-August 07

Posted 03 April 2012 - 11:58 AM

http://www.iea.org.u...-simplification

Quote

A glance at the Conservative Party’s Manifesto for the last general election must have inspired British taxpayers: ‘The Conservative Party believes in lower and simpler taxation. … Our ambition is to create the most competitive tax system in the G20 within five years. We will restore (sic) the tax system’s reputation for simplicity, stability and predictability.’




Quote

Naturally, in the light of the 2010 Conservative Manifesto, our expectations were high. But we could scarcely have dared to hope for the scale of the simplification that has now been vouchsafed to us. For the Finance Bill (No. 4) 2010-12, seeking to enact the provisions of the recent Budget, goes further than anyone anticipated. It has proved impossible to contain all its brevity in fewer than three volumes. Victorian biographers could have learned lessons here.

As one leafs through the 686 pages of the Bill, one cannot withhold murmurs of admiration at the beauty of the prose – almost rivalling that of accounting standards! – that the draughtsmen have managed to incorporate. In the ten Parts comprising Volume I, its 227 sections are admirably concise; though they may have overdone the terseness of Part 2, covering Insurance companies carrying on long-term business, which takes up a mere 94 sections and fifty-five pages. One reaches the end of this Part, conscious of a poignant wish: ‘If only it could have gone on longer.’

But the best is yet to come. For Volumes II and III between them contain 38 Schedules and 540 pages. Invidious indeed to choose a favourite! Maybe Schedule 2, with its 40 pages covering ‘Profits arising from the exploitation of patents etc’. Or Schedule 6’s 55 pages encompassing the gripping ‘Seed enterprise investment scheme’. But then again, it is hard to resist Schedule 13’s 36 pages on ‘Employer asset-backed pension contributions etc’. The heart thrills at the very words!

Every captivated reader of these inspired pages will have his or her own special fancy. Who would have thought that Schedule 16 could cover its vital content (‘Part 2: minor and consequential amendments’) in a mere 34 elegant pages? On balance, though, I would award the palm to Schedule 20, on ‘Controlled foreign companies and foreign permanent establishments’. What a tragedy that this Schedule closed with its number of pages (97) still just short of a century. It is a miracle of compression that nobody who has read it from start to finish will ever be quite able to forget.

:lol:




Gideon's excelled himself.







"The problem with capitalism is that eventually you end up with everyone else's money" - RK

"We have now entered The Great Rebalancing 2007-20xx" - RK

#2 User is offline   porca misèria 

  • Porcine Aviation Enterprises
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,868
  • Joined: 01-September 08

Posted 03 April 2012 - 01:30 PM

Mixed bag.

Some horrendous new messing with rates and entitlements, though nothing so big as the whole graduate tax loans mess from last time round. Ugly, but not really important, in the sense that it's all a bunch of figures you can feed into your Sage (or a website) and get exact answers back.

On the other hand, I thought I heard in the budget speech a really important simplification: didn't he say all employment taxes payable by employers were being rolled into a single system? That kind of thing - lightening the administrative headache on businesses - is what matters the most.

#3 User is offline   Timak 

  • HPC Veteran
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,978
  • Joined: 30-May 08

Posted 03 April 2012 - 01:49 PM

Businesses should be taxed on turnover not profit. If you take payments in £ you pay taxes here.

Citizens income of say £10k a year per head from the age of 21, only those in need of extra help to qualify for more benefits.

Flat tax on any income / capital gains at around 25%

2 transaction taxes - a clearing house tax that takes a small % of every non-cash transaction, a "society" tax that pays for the external costs of the product e.g. drugs, alcohol, pollutants

Simple as anything.

Stops evasion/avoidance and can almost all be automated to mean less jobs for accountants and lawyers and more for programmers :)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________The correct answer to every statement is "It's a little bit more complicated than that"

#4 User is offline   porca misèria 

  • Porcine Aviation Enterprises
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,868
  • Joined: 01-September 08

Posted 03 April 2012 - 01:54 PM

View PostTimak, on 03 April 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

Businesses should be taxed on turnover not profit. If you take payments in £ you pay taxes here

That'd cut every cost to the bone.

Above all, employment costs. Ten million redundancies overnight, and rapid growth thereafter?

#5 User is offline   Timak 

  • HPC Veteran
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,978
  • Joined: 30-May 08

Posted 03 April 2012 - 02:23 PM

View Postporca misèria, on 03 April 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

That'd cut every cost to the bone.

Above all, employment costs. Ten million redundancies overnight, and rapid growth thereafter?


Depends what the % was surely?

I was only thinking something like 2%
___________________________________________________________________________________________________The correct answer to every statement is "It's a little bit more complicated than that"

#6 User is offline   porca misèria 

  • Porcine Aviation Enterprises
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,868
  • Joined: 01-September 08

Posted 03 April 2012 - 03:01 PM

View PostTimak, on 03 April 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Depends what the % was surely?

I was only thinking something like 2%

Nope. Because no matter what the rate, it makes a huge shift in favour of business that can cut costs. And since the biggest cost for almost all businesses is employing people, it hands a huge advantage to whoever can cut their staff. Or more crucially, to those who can move their business away from the whole-turnover tax net.

Those - like retailers - who have no choice about employing staff - would have to pass their costs on to consumers. So supermarkets - which run on very low profit margins - would have to put prices up to cover it. But smaller shops without the supermarkets economies of scale would be hit harder still. Higher bills.

Meanwhile high-margin businesses like finance do very nicely. As do R&D aspects of technology (my job's safe - the profits are in $) and pharma. Just so long as noone does anything so foolish as to invest in such expensive things as labs or manufacturing facilities where they're going to get taxed on both construction and operating costs of those things.

#7 User is offline   libspero 

  • Frijolero
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,818
  • Joined: 02-February 07

Posted 03 April 2012 - 03:30 PM

View Postporca misèria, on 03 April 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Nope. Because no matter what the rate, it makes a huge shift in favour of business that can cut costs. And since the biggest cost for almost all businesses is employing people, it hands a huge advantage to whoever can cut their staff. Or more crucially, to those who can move their business away from the whole-turnover tax net.


I think you might be talking at cross purposes.

Quote

Accounting: Turnover
(1) The annual sales volume net of all discounts and sales taxes.
(2) The number of times an asset (such as cash, inventory, raw materials) is replaced or revolves during an accounting period.


I think he is talking about 1, you are talking about 2.

View Postporca misèria, on 03 April 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Those - like retailers - who have no choice about employing staff - would have to pass their costs on to consumers. So supermarkets - which run on very low profit margins - would have to put prices up to cover it. But smaller shops without the supermarkets economies of scale would be hit harder still. Higher bills.


Some might consider it a good thing if small businesses were made more competitive.. though I guess they are already helped to an extent by the reduced amount of red tape and bureaucracy they are subjected to compared to large corps.
And I tell you we have learned from past mistakes.
Just as you cannot spend your way out of recession, you cannot, in a global economy, simply spend your way through recovery either.

(Gordon Brown, Labour Party Annual Conference, 29 September 1997)

So, housing affordability is better than it has ever been, but no-one can take advantage of this because they can't afford the houses. I see.
cybernoid - 7th August 2010

Gambling promises the poor what property promises the rich - something for nothing
George Bernard Shaw

#8 User is offline   Bruce Banner 

  • Targ
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11,277
  • Joined: 15-December 07

Posted 03 April 2012 - 03:34 PM

View PostRed Knight, on 03 April 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

.........Gideon's excelled himself.



:rolleyes:
.




See Below:

It looks to me like there is a massive coordinated attempt by the various VIs to engineer a spring bounce by press releases and trolling popular Internet forums such as this.

Following the reported 1.9% monthly rise from a government controlled lender and the (expected) 0.5% rate cut, this forum seems to be targeted by bulls, many joining in the last few day to talk up the market.

The general drift seems to be... 'Savings accounts are paying a pittance so get into property now and pick up a bargain'.

I wonder if the various EA and lenders associations are emailing their members, suggesting that joining this forum to talk up the market would be a good idea.


Note: The above was posted in late January 2009, the following is updated as and when required.





#9 User is offline   Bruce Banner 

  • Targ
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11,277
  • Joined: 15-December 07

Posted 03 April 2012 - 03:42 PM

Some interesting comments in this piece from 2010...

http://liberalconspi...yment/#comments
.




See Below:

It looks to me like there is a massive coordinated attempt by the various VIs to engineer a spring bounce by press releases and trolling popular Internet forums such as this.

Following the reported 1.9% monthly rise from a government controlled lender and the (expected) 0.5% rate cut, this forum seems to be targeted by bulls, many joining in the last few day to talk up the market.

The general drift seems to be... 'Savings accounts are paying a pittance so get into property now and pick up a bargain'.

I wonder if the various EA and lenders associations are emailing their members, suggesting that joining this forum to talk up the market would be a good idea.


Note: The above was posted in late January 2009, the following is updated as and when required.





Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users