Today's demonstration

That wasn't the discussion with Steve Auvache.

"Pro business"; you say that like it's a bad thing.

Businesses pay for everything in this country one way or another.

Quite possibly if the economy has been mismanaged to the extent that
businesses are going bankrupt and unable to meet their liabilities.

I wouldn't get any pleasure from that.

 

Fine. They've paid more tax than you or I on their basic anyway.

Not sure where the figure of 28% comes from though since that's the peak
capital gains tax rate. They've paid income tax on their salary on top
of that so overall it will be (somewhat) more than 28%.

Plus (I think) it's a little disingenuous of you to suggest that every
'banker' gets paid his bonus as capital gains.

Like to see how this is true when a cleaner is likely to be paying tax
at 20% peak and gets 7475 tax free.

 

This is where we have it badly wrong in the UK; labour and businesses
are seen as being seperate and opposing.

Looking at the German 'Works Council' model it seems a much more mature
way of doing business with it clearly being a partnership between the
employer/shareholders and the employee.

No, it's the capital employed that allows this to happen.

Is this a bit like the ragged trousered philanthropist or is it just me?

Labour introduced too much legislation and faf to be truely
pro-business. But they did try, well they didn't introduce punitive
rates of tax and take obvious actions to discourage business.

The mismanagement was insufficient review of lending criteria etc.
Plus, of course, the government led 'fake boom' that distorted the true
economic picture.

 

Are you in the habit of quoting verbatim and accepting everything at
face value?

 

You can employ an accountant wether your a contractor or not to make
the best of your tax position .

 

50% income tax plus national insurance

 

Exaggeration?

GMG set up an offshore entity for the sole purpose of avoiding tax.

It also took advangtage of Great Uncle Gordon's Substantial
Shareholding Exemption, which exempts companies from paying tax on
disposals of subsidiaries.

Not really an ideal footing for launching a tirade against corporate
fat cats avoiding tax, imo.

 

Nu Labor (to distinguish itself from the Real Labour Party of yore) is
mostly notable for being pro the nu labor party.

Some business benefited. Not the important ones but some did ok.

Depends on the business. Remember they found the broad bulk of the tools
to tinker with an economy right where Mad Maggie left them. They finished
of a lot of what she start red. Our wealth creating manufacturing
industries, (except where needed for strategic purposes) continued to
decline. The service industries which replace them are, not wealth
creators. They serve only in the redistribution process and history
teaches us that unless there is a very high level of regulation involved
they don't do that very well either.

 

On 2011-03-28 01:02:32 +0100, steve robinson said:

snip>

No!

 

This would be the Germany that keeps banks under control and has
higher public spending than the UK? As for it being a `partnership',
the reason for having employee representatives on the board is that
the workers do not have the same interests as the owners.

Capital on its own can do nothing.

It's just you.

The fake boom was produced by over-lending.

Crisis of capital, see?

 

No, but if a Tory Chancellor says something like that, it might just
be true. You could also look here:

Nicholas Ferguson, chairman of SVG Capital, was speaking out about
rules that allow executives at private equity firms and hedge funds
to enjoy lower tax rates than others, often of just 10%.

 

Dingly fucking *Ding*

 

I'd rather see some personal tax honesty first, consolidating and quoting
the true tax rate and also publishing the total tax paid by the average
income single person and family.

Because unless I'm dreaming the consolidated basic tax is approaching a 1/3
of taxable income and if you then add what you pay in tax on products,
bought out of taxed income, vat/fuel/booze/ved and so on, I expect the tax
burden is somewhat closer to 1/2 of earned income.

IMHO a total personal tax burden should not exceed 1/3
We should strive to have the lowest corporation tax rates in the developed
world.
.... and State expenditure should be sized accordingly.

 

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

Shouldn't the initial decision be what state expenditure is _needed_,
then adjust the taxation system to cover that expenditure?

 

Of course not.
Tax would then be 200%.

 

Thank you for the voice of sanity.
A totally transparent flat tax system with no more than 2 or 3 rate bands is
the rational start.
I'd quite like to see a set of personal and corporate tax rates set which
can then only be varied in a national emergency or by; referendum or perhaps
a 75% majority of MP's.

Taxation isn't the only way a Government can raise funds.

 

I'd love to know how you decide what's 'needed'.

 

In the exact same way that government departments currently put their
budgets together, then agree 'em with the Chancellor, p'raps?

 

That isn't what's needed, it's a combination of what they want & what
they think they'll get away with asking for, bolstered by a bit of
extravagant spending at the end of the financial year to prove whatever
they got last year wasn't enough.

 

Totally transparent? Yes please.
Number of Bands? Needs discussing, that it needs bands apparently
doesn't.
Totally flat? Never, a nice sliding scale is what we need. The more you
earn the more you pay, in both total and proportion.

The only other way would be to engage in the process of wealth creation or
asset stripping and that is supposed to be the job of capital.