Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Cogs

Paid In England

Recommended Posts

badge_1290748c.jpg

So I was thinking (always a dangerous activity). In our modern age, protectionism is certainly out of style and EU rules make it steadily harder for us to back our own. In the past it was of course "Made in England" (or Britain) but this is quite hard to do because while we do make things, we don't tend to make consumer goods (vacuum cleaners being an exception, I'm thinking here of the Numatic Henry of course).

One thing that gets my goat a bit is that when the inherent amorality of the markets is discussed, many accuse joe public (myself included) of being blinded by price and price alone, but I don't think this is the case.

It is of course also very difficult to identify the nationality of a corporation anyway, many supposedly British companies are anything but so that kind of classification scheme is largely meaningless and really besides the point. Buying British in and of itself is a bit pointless if the funds are channelled to Switzerland anyway.

So all this being as it is, it strikes me that the new economic nationalism should be something closer to "Paid in England", which is to say the company pays its taxes here and doesn't reroute its money via Luxembourg or Belize or Lichtenstein or wherever else Tory peers like to go on their hols. Its called backing yourself and there is nothing wrong with it, even pointy-headed Austrian economists agree decisions about consumption can be equated to votes so why shouldn't the consumer be informed? What I wonder is whether there is a way of finding this out easily, perhaps HMRC should do something. Further. perhaps the companies in question could apply for a "Paid in England" marque for their products and advertising which would put the cat amongst the pigeons. Ideally Government procurement should pre-emptively favour such companies although I'm not sure EU rules allow this...

Name and shame, raise and praise, why not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

badge_1290748c.jpg

So I was thinking (always a dangerous activity). In our modern age, protectionism is certainly out of style and EU rules make it steadily harder for us to back our own. In the past it was of course "Made in England" (or Britain) but this is quite hard to do because while we do make things, we don't tend to make consumer goods (vacuum cleaners being an exception, I'm thinking here of the Numatic Henry of course).

One thing that gets my goat a bit is that when the inherent amorality of the markets is discussed, many accuse joe public (myself included) of being blinded by price and price alone, but I don't think this is the case.

It is of course also very difficult to identify the nationality of a corporation anyway, many supposedly British companies are anything but so that kind of classification scheme is largely meaningless and really besides the point. Buying British in and of itself is a bit pointless if the funds are channelled to Switzerland anyway.

So all this being as it is, it strikes me that the new economic nationalism should be something closer to "Paid in England", which is to say the company pays its taxes here and doesn't reroute its money via Luxembourg or Belize or Lichtenstein or wherever else Tory peers like to go on their hols. Its called backing yourself and there is nothing wrong with it, even pointy-headed Austrian economists agree decisions about consumption can be equated to votes so why shouldn't the consumer be informed? What I wonder is whether there is a way of finding this out easily, perhaps HMRC should do something. Further. perhaps the companies in question could apply for a "Paid in England" marque for their products and advertising which would put the cat amongst the pigeons. Ideally Government procurement should pre-emptively favour such companies although I'm not sure EU rules allow this...

Name and shame, raise and praise, why not.

....good idea...M&S were never the same when they stop supplying 'Made in the UK' clothes...and although they import cheaper merchandise ..their prices are set to provide big margins ...and I'm sick of them asking "do you have a Marks and Spencers card"...when you produce your debit card or cash ...this should be against the law ...hustling high margin credit when your buying a cooked chicken and some veg....time they changed their culture..... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UK is pathetically small and has to rely on EU trade barriers. Pressure is coming from the US for Asia to level its standards, so big trouble in store. Europe is the biggest economic beast, but must stick together or fall one by one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the local camping store they have hiking boots for $299 a pair - made in vietnam

i bought these australian made ones i am wearing for $150 a couple weeks ago

the profit margins on some of those asian goods must be insane , it is often a myth that the asian stuff is cheaper - nike could easily make the shoes in the US if they're selling them for 100+ a pair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched the program "the box that changed Britain" yesterday evening. There was a thread about the originator giving away the patents recently. The program itself covered a much wider scope and explained how the use of containers for shipping dramatically increased productivity but lead to the loss of dockers jobs. According to the program the number of people employed in docking fell from 129,000 to 11,000. but the volume of goods handled increased at least five fold ( if I recall correctly).

Couple of aspects quite astounded me. One, it costs less to transport goods in a container from the far east to the UK than it does to transport that same container from the UK port to its final destination in the UK.

Secondly how retailers reduced the cost price of the goods they purchased but widened their margins. Example used was raincoats produced in the north west of England. UK produced goods were retailed for cost price x 2, far eastern goods were retailed for cost price x 10. So all the raincoat producers in the UK were forced to close, with the consequent loss of employment.

But this being the case it means that retailers are making greater profits, and paying more tax. The retailers profits depend on UK consumers being able to purchase from them. So its not in the retailers interests for the UK consumer to be unemployed and unable to consume the goods they offer for sale. How do we square the circle?

I know its all covered in basic economic theory, but the more I think about it the more contradictory it becomes. The Austrian theory letting the economy collapse so it can regenerate, would just cause too much distress to contemplate, the Keynsian theory seems a better solution, but then that seems to have generated the benefits culture that is stressing our society. I thought the intention was we would have more leisure and therefore a better quality of life rather than no work and a lower quality of life.

Is there a solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched the program "the box that changed Britain" yesterday evening. There was a thread about the originator giving away the patents recently. The program itself covered a much wider scope and explained how the use of containers for shipping dramatically increased productivity but lead to the loss of dockers jobs. According to the program the number of people employed in docking fell from 129,000 to 11,000. but the volume of goods handled increased at least five fold ( if I recall correctly).

Couple of aspects quite astounded me. One, it costs less to transport goods in a container from the far east to the UK than it does to transport that same container from the UK port to its final destination in the UK.

Secondly how retailers reduced the cost price of the goods they purchased but widened their margins. Example used was raincoats produced in the north west of England. UK produced goods were retailed for cost price x 2, far eastern goods were retailed for cost price x 10. So all the raincoat producers in the UK were forced to close, with the consequent loss of employment.

But this being the case it means that retailers are making greater profits, and paying more tax. The retailers profits depend on UK consumers being able to purchase from them. So its not in the retailers interests for the UK consumer to be unemployed and unable to consume the goods they offer for sale. How do we square the circle?

I know its all covered in basic economic theory, but the more I think about it the more contradictory it becomes. The Austrian theory letting the economy collapse so it can regenerate, would just cause too much distress to contemplate, the Keynsian theory seems a better solution, but then that seems to have generated the benefits culture that is stressing our society. I thought the intention was we would have more leisure and therefore a better quality of life rather than no work and a lower quality of life.

Is there a solution?

let the bust occur...no-one will buy the raincoats, the imports stop the asian is out of work. People still need raincoats, the locals start to make them.

Pain, but fixed in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let the bust occur...no-one will buy the raincoats, the imports stop the asian is out of work. People still need raincoats, the locals start to make them.

Pain, but fixed in the end.

Why not just start importing them again? We're in desperate straits, at least the retailers should pay tax in this country, I think worrying about where their stock comes from has been and gone as a realistic concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just start importing them again? We're in desperate straits, at least the retailers should pay tax in this country, I think worrying about where their stock comes from has been and gone as a realistic concern.

well, the theory goes that following the bust, our people will be competitive again.

If our people are not competitive, then the end is inevitable...and to gain competitiveness, either the cheap imports wont be cheap any more as costs over there become comparable, or our costs reduce, or a meeting of the two.

Industrialisation made us competitive originally, sadly, and inevitably, the technology is exported and they can have the latest and greatest gear to out do us, and for a while, pay peasants wages....or just provide them a bed and a bowl of food.

Note that even the "miracle" Chinese are looking at the next lot of peasants to industrialise...the African poor.

The cycle continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cycle continues.

At least Keynes was looking for a way to break the cycle. Austrian economics is too brutal and results in a continuation of the same cycles.

Maybe its the way its meant to be, couldn't their be a better model?

Anthropologically I suppose sustainable societies tended to ossify and the resulting stagnation was their weakness. Is there a way to have sustainability with innovation? Or to use Van Mises terminology to replace activity with contentment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I was thinking (always a dangerous activity). In our modern age, protectionism is certainly out of style and EU rules make it steadily harder for us to back our own. In the past it was of course "Made in England" (or Britain) but this is quite hard to do because while we do make things, we don't tend to make consumer goods (vacuum cleaners being an exception, I'm thinking here of the Numatic Henry of course).

One thing that gets my goat a bit is that when the inherent amorality of the markets is discussed, many accuse joe public (myself included) of being blinded by price and price alone, but I don't think this is the case.

It is of course also very difficult to identify the nationality of a corporation anyway, many supposedly British companies are anything but so that kind of classification scheme is largely meaningless and really besides the point. Buying British in and of itself is a bit pointless if the funds are channelled to Switzerland anyway.

So all this being as it is, it strikes me that the new economic nationalism should be something closer to "Paid in England", which is to say the company pays its taxes here and doesn't reroute its money via Luxembourg or Belize or Lichtenstein or wherever else Tory peers like to go on their hols. Its called backing yourself and there is nothing wrong with it, even pointy-headed Austrian economists agree decisions about consumption can be equated to votes so why shouldn't the consumer be informed? What I wonder is whether there is a way of finding this out easily, perhaps HMRC should do something. Further. perhaps the companies in question could apply for a "Paid in England" marque for their products and advertising which would put the cat amongst the pigeons. Ideally Government procurement should pre-emptively favour such companies although I'm not sure EU rules allow this...

Name and shame, raise and praise, why not.

That is a fine idea.

We only really hear in the media about personal income tax.

The real problem is the corporation tax system. Not just in the UK but globally. It's a travesty that taxes are not paid locally.

Blame the tax havens. I believe our beloved Tesco abuse the system by selling and leasing back numerous stores to an off-shore

company which they control.

Now why would they do this unless there was some sort of tax benefit ?

Corporation tax abuse is endemic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a fine idea.

We only really hear in the media about personal income tax.

The real problem is the corporation tax system. Not just in the UK but globally. It's a travesty that taxes are not paid locally.

Blame the tax havens. I believe our beloved Tesco abuse the system by selling and leasing back numerous stores to an off-shore

company which they control.

Now why would they do this unless there was some sort of tax benefit ?

Corporation tax abuse is endemic.

Neither individuals nor corporations want to pay more tax than they are obliged to pay.

Individual and corporate tax minimizing behaviour is both rational and predictable.

Global competition between tax jurisdictions is healthy if one believes that a small state is the best outcome for an economy. It is unhealthy if one believes that a large state is the best outcome for an economy.

Should anyone feel that they are happy to pay more to enlarge the state than the obliged to pay, I understand that it is possible to make gifts directly to the Treasury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least Keynes was looking for a way to break the cycle. Austrian economics is too brutal and results in a continuation of the same cycles.

Maybe its the way its meant to be, couldn't their be a better model?

snip

I dont think Austrian is a model...it describes what happens.

It is the only theory that explains stagflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I buy on a mixture of price and quality. So I like LIDL / ALDI and drive straight past Somerfield.

I'm not taken in by the scams that are fair trade / organic / designer / celeberity endorsed and will actively avoid those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither individuals nor corporations want to pay more tax than they are obliged to pay.

Individual and corporate tax minimizing behaviour is both rational and predictable.

Global competition between tax jurisdictions is healthy if one believes that a small state is the best outcome for an economy. It is unhealthy if one believes that a large state is the best outcome for an economy.

Should anyone feel that they are happy to pay more to enlarge the state than the obliged to pay, I understand that it is possible to make gifts directly to the Treasury.

A rather trivial argument and not even true at that. Global competition between tax jurisdictions just means competing to avoid dealing the consequences of the externalities you create and free riding on others. Markets cost money to create and regulate; they require infrastructure, the enforcement of property law, the enforcement of contract law etc etc. It has nothing to do with the size of the state and there is more, at the margin, in life than "the economy".

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched the program "the box that changed Britain" yesterday evening. There was a thread about the originator giving away the patents recently. The program itself covered a much wider scope and explained how the use of containers for shipping dramatically increased productivity but lead to the loss of dockers jobs. According to the program the number of people employed in docking fell from 129,000 to 11,000. but the volume of goods handled increased at least five fold ( if I recall correctly).

Couple of aspects quite astounded me. One, it costs less to transport goods in a container from the far east to the UK than it does to transport that same container from the UK port to its final destination in the UK.

Secondly how retailers reduced the cost price of the goods they purchased but widened their margins. Example used was raincoats produced in the north west of England. UK produced goods were retailed for cost price x 2, far eastern goods were retailed for cost price x 10. So all the raincoat producers in the UK were forced to close, with the consequent loss of employment.

But this being the case it means that retailers are making greater profits, and paying more tax. The retailers profits depend on UK consumers being able to purchase from them. So its not in the retailers interests for the UK consumer to be unemployed and unable to consume the goods they offer for sale. How do we square the circle?

I know its all covered in basic economic theory, but the more I think about it the more contradictory it becomes. The Austrian theory letting the economy collapse so it can regenerate, would just cause too much distress to contemplate, the Keynsian theory seems a better solution, but then that seems to have generated the benefits culture that is stressing our society. I thought the intention was we would have more leisure and therefore a better quality of life rather than no work and a lower quality of life.

Is there a solution?

That the unsustainable paradox at the heart of globlisation, why its no more than a get quick rich scheme for the

already vastly rich, dysfunctional capitalism thats eating itself.

The attempt to "square the circle" you mention was to flood western consumers, either displaced from work by globalisation

or earning less in real terms than 30 years before because of globalistion, with easy and unregulated credit so they could

carry on buying the products of their exported jobs: we know what happened next.

The solution is to accept that globalisation has been deeply destructive and start rolling it back by whatever means neccesary

be that import duty, punitive taxation on Western companies that produce goods in China...I know none of that is very palatable

and has potentially terrible consequences, but its that or watch our socities ripped to pieces and, ulitmately, a total collapse

of the capitalist system.

Damned if we do, even more damned if we don't, if you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that gets my goat a bit is that when the inherent amorality of the markets is discussed, many accuse joe public (myself included) of being blinded by price and price alone, but I don't think this is the case.

Vicious circle, people are being paid less and less over time (I sure remember the £2.15 I was paid per hour in McDonalds around the mid 1990s sure buying more than NMW today).

Therefore imported cheap goods help stretch those £ further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of aspects quite astounded me. One, it costs less to transport goods in a container from the far east to the UK than it does to transport that same container from the UK port to its final destination in the UK.

You can say that again, via LCL cargo shipping my bike cost me $260 to ship back to Felixstowe, at Felixstowe they wanted considerably more in handling charges to release the bike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vicious circle, people are being paid less and less over time (I sure remember the £2.15 I was paid per hour in McDonalds around the mid 1990s sure buying more than NMW today).

Therefore imported cheap goods help stretch those £ further.

Yes but it isn't the only factor involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution is to accept that globalisation has been deeply destructive and start rolling it back by whatever means neccesary

be that import duty, punitive taxation on Western companies that produce goods in China...I know none of that is very palatable

and has potentially terrible consequences, but its that or watch our socities ripped to pieces and, ulitmately, a total collapse

of the capitalist system.

Damned if we do, even more damned if we don't, if you like.

Nissan beat the quotas in the 1980s and 1990s by building a factory here, what prevents globalised industries from doing the same? Except with one twist the factory is almost completely mechanised with robots and requires a 2 or 3 blokes to oil the robots. There was a BMW factory in Germany which was similar where 15000people applied for less than 50 jobs as their concept of a car factory was outdated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched the program "the box that changed Britain" yesterday evening. There was a thread about the originator giving away the patents recently. The program itself covered a much wider scope and explained how the use of containers for shipping dramatically increased productivity but lead to the loss of dockers jobs. According to the program the number of people employed in docking fell from 129,000 to 11,000. but the volume of goods handled increased at least five fold ( if I recall correctly).

Couple of aspects quite astounded me. One, it costs less to transport goods in a container from the far east to the UK than it does to transport that same container from the UK port to its final destination in the UK.

Secondly how retailers reduced the cost price of the goods they purchased but widened their margins. Example used was raincoats produced in the north west of England. UK produced goods were retailed for cost price x 2, far eastern goods were retailed for cost price x 10. So all the raincoat producers in the UK were forced to close, with the consequent loss of employment.

But this being the case it means that retailers are making greater profits, and paying more tax. The retailers profits depend on UK consumers being able to purchase from them. So its not in the retailers interests for the UK consumer to be unemployed and unable to consume the goods they offer for sale. How do we square the circle?

I know its all covered in basic economic theory, but the more I think about it the more contradictory it becomes. The Austrian theory letting the economy collapse so it can regenerate, would just cause too much distress to contemplate, the Keynsian theory seems a better solution, but then that seems to have generated the benefits culture that is stressing our society. I thought the intention was we would have more leisure and therefore a better quality of life rather than no work and a lower quality of life.

Is there a solution?

Great programme, Felixstowe dock cargo handling is carried out by one man now.

Though probably supported by a HR department, PR, Corporate Communciations team, Diversity & Equality consultant etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rather trivial argument and not even true at that. Global competition between tax jurisdictions just means competing to avoid dealing the consequences of the externalities you create and free riding on others. Markets cost money to create and regulate; they require infrastructure, the enforcement of property law, the enforcement of contract law etc etc. It has nothing to do with the size of the state and there is more, at the margin, in life than "the economy".

Sorry, I might not have been clear enough.

When talking about competition between tax jurisdictions, I meant that states are competing amongst themselves to attract globally mobile taxpayers.

An efficient state that can provide all the services that you describe above at low cost will naturally attract more globally mobile taxpayers than inefficient states that provide the same services at a higher cost.

Of course, the choice isn't completely binary so individuals and corporations will arrange their affairs so that they expose as much of their tax base as possible in efficient states and as little of their tax base as possible in inefficient states when their tax base gets to a large enough size that the costs of execution and compliance are less than the benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nissan beat the quotas in the 1980s and 1990s by building a factory here, what prevents globalised industries from doing the same? Except with one twist the factory is almost completely mechanised with robots and requires a 2 or 3 blokes to oil the robots. There was a BMW factory in Germany which was similar where 15000people applied for less than 50 jobs as their concept of a car factory was outdated.

If Nissan want to more build factories in the UK I'm sure they would be welcome.

Mechanisation is not globalisation, mechanisation is a natural process that capitalist economies adapt to and has been going in on since the first days of the industrial revolution. Globalisation is a parasitic and destructive, it wipes out the present and future jobs base in Western countries, its a Dutch auction of workers rights and wages that always seeks out the lowest cost base, a system that enriches a few at the cost of the many and it takes only a modicum of logical extrapolation to come to the conclusion that is not a sustainable system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I might not have been clear enough.

When talking about competition between tax jurisdictions, I meant that states are competing amongst themselves to attract globally mobile taxpayers.

An efficient state that can provide all the services that you describe above at low cost will naturally attract more globally mobile taxpayers than inefficient states that provide the same services at a higher cost.

Of course, the choice isn't completely binary so individuals and corporations will arrange their affairs so that they expose as much of their tax base as possible in efficient states and as little of their tax base as possible in inefficient states when their tax base gets to a large enough size that the costs of execution and compliance are less than the benefit.

That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking enjoying the services of one country and registering for tax at a lower rate in a third world country via a PO Box. The dodges that go on are ridiculous, some of our largest companies, we are led to believe, are really based in British Honduras. This isn't about non-doms, I think that is relatively trivial in truth. I'm talking about companies with 10s of 1000s of employees here and no employees in, say, Belize, that are the none the less paying tax in a country nobody involved has ever been to and not paying it here. That isn't a "competition" any civilised country can win.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I might not have been clear enough.

When talking about competition between tax jurisdictions, I meant that states are competing amongst themselves to attract globally mobile taxpayers.

An efficient state that can provide all the services that you describe above at low cost will naturally attract more globally mobile taxpayers than inefficient states that provide the same services at a higher cost.

Of course, the choice isn't completely binary so individuals and corporations will arrange their affairs so that they expose as much of their tax base as possible in efficient states and as little of their tax base as possible in inefficient states when their tax base gets to a large enough size that the costs of execution and compliance are less than the benefit.

Thats utter selfserving bulls***. Its nothing to do with the efficiency of states and everything to do with externalizing costs. For example monaco residents will have ownership of assets all over the world generating income on which they do not pay tax. The residents of the UK, US, france, germany, etc, etc, pay for the necessary externalities which allow that monacoan's assets to generate revenue, roads, hospitals, schools, etc.

Thus the monaco monarcy has structured its tax base to attract extremely high networth individuals who extract their incomes from other nations. The monaco government does not need to have its taxes at a rate necessary to support the infrastructure necessary to generate those incomes, others, us, pay those costs. They are externalized - A free ride for monaco, a free ride for the high net worth tax exiles living in monaco. Look at the low tax states and you'll find 99% operate this way.

So please show me how monaco, belieze, isle of man, gurnsey, andora, bahamas, bermuda, cayman islands, jersey, liberia, switzerland, even uk (non-dom status), etc, etc do not externalize costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking enjoying the services of one country and registering for tax at a lower rate in a third world country via a PO Box. The dodges that go on are ridiculous, some of our largest companies, we are led to believe, are really based in British Honduras. This isn't about non-doms, I think that is relatively trivial in truth. I'm talking about companies with 10s of 1000s of employees here and no employees in, say, Belize, that are the none the less paying tax in a country nobody involved has ever been to and not paying it here. That isn't a "competition" any civilised country can win.

Agreed.

The problem is that the countries themselves are creating the tax regimes. Individuals and corporations are simply maximizing their after tax returns in a completely rational and legal way. The only way that I can see to codify morals is to create laws which roughly reflect the consensus opinion of the majority. Unfortunately this process is generally very impure and the interests of the wealthy have a disproportionate influence on the outcome.

I am probably very naive but I actually think that our new coalition government might actually help create a government of the people, by the people, for the people in a way that we haven't seen for at least a generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.