Nice swerve - you still haven't answered the point put to you by two separate poster - why is it that if tax can be minimised to none that global companies still pay any tax at all? As you said why pay any tax if you can pay none? BP are paying taxes in the billions strange thing to do if you don't have to pay any?

The government have demonstrated that lower the top rate of income tax actually increased take and often increasing taxation has a negative impact on take - so again this is not fantasy it is reality.

Strange as it may seem, some companies, even global ones, do seem to operate with a sense of social justice



They have?

Where, when?

The tax take did go up when the 50% rate was reduced to 45% but that was because high earners deferred taking their bonuses until the new rate kicked in! Will be interesting to see if it increases the tax from now on.

I know that. I'm also aware that the 50% rate was only in force for one year and the spivs who deferred taking bonuses until after the rate dropped to 45% also brought forward bonuses to take advantage of the 40% rate before it increased to 50%.

My question was aimed at the simpleton who made the claim that lowering taxes increases the tax take

Well its pretty obvious some companies indulge in aggressive avoidance and some do not. Those not as aggressive will still be at it to a degree. If you think the consolidated accounting of group profit that determines how much tax BP pay here isn't being reduced by transfer pricing or other avoidance measures I think you would be wrong.

Either way it has nothing to do with the corporate tax rate and the fact you seem to think they pay their full whack rather undermines your argument it should be reduced. [uWhy reduce it if the likes of BP pay up?[/u



No they have not. This tells you why.

[urlhttp://fullfact.org/factchecks/labour_50p_tax_rate_millionaires_leave_country-28645[/url

What also happened was the reverse effect of the forestalling mentioned in the link above when the current govt announced it was going to drop the top rate.

Instead of forestalling people deferred incomes so they were not taxed on it until after the rate went down. So having deferred it the tax revenue took a jump in the year they elected to pay up as they declared more taxable income that year than when the 50p rate was in force.

So people elected to be taxed in 2009-10 tax year on projected liabilities for 2010-11 when they would have got hit with the new 50p rate.

Then in 2011-12 when it was in force they deferred income because they were told it going to drop.

Net result? Tax revenue in 2009-10 and 2012-13 jumps in net terms compared to the period the 50p rate was in force.

[uHad the 50p rate remained in force the effects of forestalling and deferring income would have disappeared.[/u

What that means it was not a reduction the rate that caused a jump in tax revenue due to some ludicrous notion all these high earners were suddenly spurred onto ever greater entrepreneurial effort or all rushed back to the UK having up sticks and left.

It happened because our idiotic governments (plural) announced the changes in advance allowing people to indulge in tax avoidance. And yes the Labour govt was stupid not to realise announcing the increase to 50p in advance would would result in forestalling.

My cynical view is the Tories didn't make a similar mistake by announcing the reduction in advance. The tip off was deliberate.

Both governments lost out on tax revenue by allowing individuals to declare taxable income when it suited them by giving them ample warning. Incompetence or deliberate policy?

The fact the Tories claim it is proof a lower rate increases revenue is clearly an outright lie as it ignores these factors.

Now they will spin it the way they do because they are happy to peddle such misinformation but what about you? Is that what you are doing or did you just swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker?

Point 1 you admit some companies will pay tax at reasonable rates - BP paid 12bn in 2012 - even though they have the option to relocate to a zero tax environment?

Second point you also admit that the tax take has increased - for whatever reason.

That is all that was required - no need for all the fog-knitting

The same simpleton that crushed your argument regarding the bottom quantile!!

So do you think if they lowered the tax on petrol the take would increase or decrease? Do you think if they lowered the tax on cigerettes the take would increase or decrease.

Hardly spivs. Most people would be propreitors of their own businesses. Governemts are manipulative. Labour started announcing rate rises in advance seemingly in order to accelerate receipts of tax.

Do you live in some right-wing fantasy land

You have yet to "crush" any argument of mine, apart from in your own imagination. And before you even attaempt to go any further, I suggest you look up the difference between 'centile' and 'quantile' (you can use wiki if you prefer).

Stop trying to compare apples with pears fool

You do realise you are making yourself look like a complete buffoon here don't you?

How do you know why they did it?

We know what happened and the tax take increased pre and post the 50p rate for the reasons we both (I think) accept.

Only Sap P is stupid enough to use what happened here to suggest this proves the tax take goes up if you lower the tax rate as a general principle.

When I look as stupid as you I will start to worry!!

Your argument has been completely dismantled - sadly the only person who hasn't realised is you - typical Sin Bin chatter class.

Defeating you in debate is easy, your leftie epiphany stops you thinking straight

Increasing the personal allowance has benefitted millions of people and it isn't just a case of replacing the extra money with reduced benefits. You are the only person I know who thinks increasing personal allowances has had no tangible benefit to anyone - are you for real?

Once again you are simply making up statements that I never made. It is entirely possible that you suffer some form of neurological condition, if so I do feel sorry for you but would suggest you seek professional help

[urlhttp://37signals.com/svn/posts/578-who-wants-to-live-in-the-real-world[/url

Seems like the governmen have caught up wih Bob Crow with their proposals.

How very untypical of the tories to choose a personality to target new legislation.

Looks like Thatcher/Scargill all over again.

I wonder just how many "rich" people there are living in what few council houses that still exist?

Nah they now own a cartload of them and let them out, especially sons of ex-ministers who were involved with bringing in the policy.

[url=http://legalaidandme.proboards.com/thread/8301/audacity-cameron-hypocrisy-help-buy?post-20923=undefinedLooks like Camoron's little 'Help to Buy' PR stunt last week isn't all it seems[/url

If it turns from a "Lets fly this kite and see if anyone shoots it down" to actual policy/law then its a significant shift from a standpoint of council housing being available to any who chose it as a method of residence to council housing only being for the poor - which isn't really going to benefit anyone especially those who have lived on estates for generations and by mis-management seen their decline.

A radical right wing government adopting Standee's viewpoint, who would have thought it ?

In what way? Was she someone who used the "help to buy scheme" or not?

The newspapers picked up on a blog story that had been widely circulated over the weekend, on first viewing it looks like a very carefully stage managed "good news" PR story but when reading the details (there are few details) its fairly plain to see that nothing illegal has occurred.

What is plain is that Camerons advisors could have picked a better example for him to turn into a PR exercise for Right-to-Buy and if I were him I'd be asking some questions of his staff, like "Did you not ask her what job she did, could you not have found me an Asda checkout girl to be photographed with ?"

Quote ="JerryChicken"The newspapers picked up on a blog story that had been widely circulated over the weekend, on first viewing it looks like a very carefully stage managed "good news" PR story but when reading the details (there are few details) its fairly plain to see that nothing illegal has occurred. What is plain is that Camerons advisors could have picked a better example for him to turn into a PR exercise for Right-to-Buy and if I were him I'd be asking some questions of his staff, like "Did you not ask her what job she did, could you not have found me an Asda checkout girl to be photographed with ?"'" You mean like this one? www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/ne ... uy_scheme/ 2 bed terraces round there for £50k. Not the greatest area but they seemed please. But still, not quite as juicy as "Woman with good job, nice car buys expensive house...WAAAAHHHH Tories"

Quote ="JerryChicken"The newspapers picked up on a blog story that had been widely circulated over the weekend, on first viewing it looks like a very carefully stage managed "good news" PR story but when reading the details (there are few details) its fairly plain to see that nothing illegal has occurred. What is plain is that Camerons advisors could have picked a better example for him to turn into a PR exercise for Right-to-Buy and if I were him I'd be asking some questions of his staff, like "Did you not ask her what job she did, could you not have found me an Asda checkout girl to be photographed with ?"'" You mean like this one? www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/ne ... uy_scheme/ 2 bed terraces round there for £50k. Not the greatest area but they seemed please. But still, not quite as juicy as "Woman with good job, nice car buys expensive house...WAAAAHHHH Tories"

Quote ="BobbyD"You mean like this one? www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/ne ... uy_scheme/ 2 bed terraces round there for £50k. Not the greatest area but they seemed please. But still, not quite as juicy as "Woman with good job, nice car buys expensive house...WAAAAHHHH Tories"'" Thats the way the newspapers work, welcome to the realisation, the nationals feed off the regionals and also off social media, the Cameron story was doing the rounds before the weekend on Twitter and Facebook and the story as printed is almost word for word what the blogger (with an agenda) wrote, no research necessary just lots of innuendo and suggestion. Like I said, his staff could have done a few minutes research and perhaps chosen a more neutral subject.

Quote ="BobbyD"You mean like this one? www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/ne ... uy_scheme/ 2 bed terraces round there for £50k. Not the greatest area but they seemed please. But still, not quite as juicy as "Woman with good job, nice car buys expensive house...WAAAAHHHH Tories"'" Thats the way the newspapers work, welcome to the realisation, the nationals feed off the regionals and also off social media, the Cameron story was doing the rounds before the weekend on Twitter and Facebook and the story as printed is almost word for word what the blogger (with an agenda) wrote, no research necessary just lots of innuendo and suggestion. Like I said, his staff could have done a few minutes research and perhaps chosen a more neutral subject.

Or the blogger (with an agenda) could have actually looked at the facts as opposed to "WAAAHHHH...Tories".