Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
punter

Peter Hitchens On Tax Avoidance

Recommended Posts

Jesus H. Christ! No this one... AGAIN!!!

Do coffees in comparable coffee shops - that do pay Corporation Tax - cost more? Er, no. So it suggests that the pricing is set at what the market will bear. When a company doesn't pay tax, the reduction in their own costs may or may not be passed on to the end consumer. In most cases, it turns out, it's not passed on, the extra is simply retained and used to boost profits.

Well you can't get something for nothing.

If they paid more in tax - the money would come from either lower wages for the employees, more expensive or lower quality coffee, or lower dividends for the owners.

The evidence is that the more open your capital markets - the more the extra costs are borne by consumers and employees, and not by the owners of said capital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it is should be the sworn duty of every citizen to avoid paying as much tax as legally allowed for the benefit of their families and to avoid the misallocation of society resouces, until the tax rate drops to about a reasonable 10% that is (cf before WW1) then after which all you thieving bar stewards pay the tax man damnyou.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who can blame people for attempting to avoid theft?

The immoral people are those who are encouraging/enabling the state thievery in the first place.

Many of these debates seem to be like "well, I'm getting taxed to buggery, so they should too!". It's typical slave on slave action. Instead of everyone blaming the master for beating the crap out of one of them if they don't do as they're told, they blame the slave for not doing as they were told.

While society revolves around forced association and aggression, no good will come of it.

+1

How come people that think it's so great don't pay some extra in. Funny how they always pay exactly, what they have no opportunity of avoiding or altering, through PAYE and allegedly they're wondrously happy about this yet never pay a penny more.

Also the main thrust of the original article seemed to be that governements waste money - which is hard to argue with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it is should be the sworn duty of every citizen to avoid paying as much tax as legally allowed for the benefit of their families and to avoid the misallocation of society resouces, until the tax rate drops to about a reasonable 10% that is (cf before WW1) then after which all you thieving bar stewards pay the tax man damnyou.

Your bonkers. Before WWI we had an aging profile that was inverted as compared to now. We had no NHS. We had no high quality national road network. We had no monitoring of food quality or pollution control. We had no....etc....etc.....

There is simply no way we can get to tax being 10% of GDP without going third world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your bonkers. Before WWI we had an aging profile that was inverted as compared to now. We had no NHS. We had no high quality national road network. We had no monitoring of food quality or pollution control. We had no....etc....etc.....

There is simply no way we can get to tax being 10% of GDP without going third world.

guy, woz about HK and Singapore then. They don't look like falling apart now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

How come people that think it's so great don't pay some extra in. Funny how they always pay exactly, what they have no opportunity of avoiding or altering, through PAYE and allegedly they're wondrously happy about this yet never pay a penny more.

Also the main thrust of the original article seemed to be that governements waste money - which is hard to argue with.

The fact that anyone who is in favour of paying more into the Treasury than required is able to do so voluntarily is lost on many.

If Warren Buffet really believes that he should pay more to the Treasury, he can write them a cheque and be done with it. Obviously the motives for his stance have nothing to do with what he thinks that he should pay to the Treasury. If it did, he would simply have sent them a cheque and it would not be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guy, woz about HK and Singapore then. They don't look like falling apart now.

They are small tiny island nations. They are fundamentally economically different than large nations, and even then their gov spending is 17% and 18.4% respectively which is nowhere near the 10% figure you talk about. Have them nearly halve the size of their governments and you'd be correct.

Now point me to a modern developed LARGE economy that has tax rates remotely close to what your talking about. Then that would be a viable starting point for discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are small tiny island nations. They are fundamentally economically different than large nations, and even then their gov spending is 17% and 18.4% respectively which is nowhere near the 10% figure you talk about. Have them nearly halve the size of their governments and you'd be correct.

Now point me to a modern developed LARGE economy that has tax rates remotely close to what your talking about. Then that would be a viable starting point for discussion.

ok, maybe 10% is for us "contractors", aye ;) You can double the 10% figure to 20% in me post then if you is then happy about it. Now cans we talk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historical investments are probably stranded. New investment opportunities across the globe are evaluated on an after tax, risk adjusted basis. If the UK's tax regime becomes uncompetitive, the next investment is less likely to be made in the UK and is more likely to be made elsewhere. States compete for capital on the basis of tax rates as well as risk.

That may be the case for some corporations, but for the most part the idea that companies will skip or leave Britain is a myth.

Where else can they go? There aren't an infinite number of developed western markets like the UK. Even if they are in other countries a company like Starbucks not investing in the UK seems stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are small tiny island nations. They are fundamentally economically different than large nations, and even then their gov spending is 17% and 18.4% respectively which is nowhere near the 10% figure you talk about. Have them nearly halve the size of their governments and you'd be correct.

Now point me to a modern developed LARGE economy that has tax rates remotely close to what your talking about. Then that would be a viable starting point for discussion.

Are you suggesting that institutional theft is a requirement of civilisation and that contracts and free association are insufficient?

I would appreciate hearing your argument about why this is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be the case for some corporations, but for the most part the idea that companies will skip or leave Britain is a myth.

Where else can they go? There aren't an infinite number of developed western markets like the UK. Even if they are in other countries a company like Starbucks not investing in the UK seems stupid.

I am suggesting that as Britain's risk and tax regime becomes less competitive, less new capital will flow here. I didn't say that existing investments will be abandoned unless things get extreme. I think that the perception of a worsening of Britain's tax regime is already impacting capital flows into the UK as is the assessment of other risks. As always, flows have more impact than stocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affording Starbucks was a bit like affording Disney. A consumer right of passage. People ponced around my office, pinkie at right angles, proudly displaying their vente latte.

Then along came this tax row, and it's a fantastic excuse for said idiots to 'stop buying Starbucks because of the tax issues', while secretly thanking their lucky stars they've got an excuse not to spend two or three quid for a crap cup of coffee, just to be part of the gang.

The likes of me (the kind of loony lefty Hitchens / Game Over etc etc despise) were never going to buy Starbucks anyway, so we make no difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am suggesting that as Britain's risk and tax regime becomes less competitive, less new capital will flow here. I didn't say that existing investments will be abandoned unless things get extreme. I think that the perception of a worsening of Britain's tax regime is already impacting capital flows into the UK as is the assessment of other risks. As always, flows have more impact than stocks.

I understood what you meant, I just didn't agree. If a new company that was like Starbucks was looking to invest in the UK, it would do so even if there was a stronger tax. Customers may have to put up with higher prices, or profit margins would be smaller. But there would still be the opportunity to make a profit.

We aren't the only country tightening up tax regulations, it's happening all over Europe, and in America too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

How come people that think it's so great don't pay some extra in. Funny how they always pay exactly, what they have no opportunity of avoiding or altering, through PAYE and allegedly they're wondrously happy about this yet never pay a penny more.

Also the main thrust of the original article seemed to be that governements waste money - which is hard to argue with.

And worse for a certain newspaper who claims back the taxes they paid when they make losses - if it is so great to pay taxes, they shouldn't even bother to claim it back. I don't ask for gifts to my friends and family back even when I am not doing so well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood what you meant, I just didn't agree. If a new company that was like Starbucks was looking to invest in the UK, it would do so even if there was a stronger tax. Customers may have to put up with higher prices, or profit margins would be smaller. But there would still be the opportunity to make a profit.

We aren't the only country tightening up tax regulations, it's happening all over Europe, and in America too.

The thing is that new investment capital is finite. It ranks the opportunities in risk adjusted, after tax returns with 3 to 10 year horizons depending on the industry. Once the new investment capital is exhausted, they stop moving down the list. It is my belief that Britain is moving itself down the list and will lose out on some new investment capital that it would otherwise have attracted, especially as premises costs are so extreme here which increases the impact of taxes on risk adjusted, after tax returns.

I am happy to agree to disagree on this. My experience is that relative, after tax risk adjusted rates of return are what count in a capital constrained world rather than simple "profits".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus H. Christ! No this one... AGAIN!!!

Do coffees in comparable coffee shops - that do pay Corporation Tax - cost more? Er, no. So it suggests that the pricing is set at what the market will bear. When a company doesn't pay tax, the reduction in their own costs may or may not be passed on to the end consumer. In most cases, it turns out, it's not passed on, the extra is simply retained and used to boost profits.

Not to mention the poverty level wages paid to their staff, meaning that we effectively subsidise them through housing benefit and tax credits whether we use them or not. Sadly I can report that the boycott Starbucks campaign is falling on deaf ears at Victoria Station. The place is rammed every morning and there's plenty of other outlets to buy coffee from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Of course I am minimising my tax. And if anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax, they want their heads read, because as a government, I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are small tiny island nations. They are fundamentally economically different than large nations, and even then their gov spending is 17% and 18.4% respectively which is nowhere near the 10% figure you talk about. Have them nearly halve the size of their governments and you'd be correct.

Now point me to a modern developed LARGE economy that has tax rates remotely close to what your talking about. Then that would be a viable starting point for discussion.

While I agree they are fundamentally different in that respect, I struggle to see why that would be advantageous in terms of required tax take. You would think that the total absence of natural resources (including food, potable water and energy) would outway the benefit of a single dense population center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree they are fundamentally different in that respect, I struggle to see why that would be advantageous in terms of required tax take. You would think that the total absence of natural resources (including food, potable water and energy) would outway the benefit of a single dense population center.

Well it's impossible, really, to analyze these things accurately due to the sheer complexity of the systems involved.

The anecdotal evidence is however, that nations that have gov's of 20% of GDP or less are either third world developing nations or tiny city states. All major developed nations have governments that make up significantly more of GDP. So it is doubtful with this precedent that its possible to have a major nation be viable with gov making up 20% or less of GDP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's impossible, really, to analyze these things accurately due to the sheer complexity of the systems involved.

The anecdotal evidence is however, that nations that have gov's of 20% of GDP or less are either third world developing nations or tiny city states. All major developed nations have governments that make up significantly more of GDP. So it is doubtful with this precedent that its possible to have a major nation be viable with gov making up 20% or less of GDP.

Can't steal what hasn't been made. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's impossible, really, to analyze these things accurately due to the sheer complexity of the systems involved.

The anecdotal evidence is however, that nations that have gov's of 20% of GDP or less are either third world developing nations or tiny city states. All major developed nations have governments that make up significantly more of GDP. So it is doubtful with this precedent that its possible to have a major nation be viable with gov making up 20% or less of GDP.

You are right on this one. I can live with income tax of 25% (plus other taxes, minus allowances), probably give you a net 30% of GDP.

Don't want to invoke the moral thing, as it is far too subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right on this one. I can live with income tax of 25% (plus other taxes, minus allowances), probably give you a net 30% of GDP.

Don't want to invoke the moral thing, as it is far too subjective.

Most academic studies indicate that the ideal size of the state is between 25% and 30% of GDP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's impossible, really, to analyze these things accurately due to the sheer complexity of the systems involved.

The anecdotal evidence is however, that nations that have gov's of 20% of GDP or less are either third world developing nations or tiny city states. All major developed nations have governments that make up significantly more of GDP. So it is doubtful with this precedent that its possible to have a major nation be viable with gov making up 20% or less of GDP.

The U.S is at 26% and was historically around 20%. I am sure it was a lot less during their rapid rise between 1780-1900

Edited by punter

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 295 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.