Bolitics The New Condem Government

[colhint]

 

 

 

What a remarkable statement!

If it is several years it is very good. It means that the investigators are working from the back forward, and therefore there could be plenty more to come.

And just think of all those HMRC employees now paying 40% tax because of their big bonuses!

You can try and paint the governments utter utter unwillingness to make big business pay their dues to society in as good a light as you like. It don't wash with me I'm afraid.

How could my pointing out the obvious error of your statement be translated into me trying to 'paint the government in a good light'?

You have moved from making remarkable statements to ridiculous statements.

There's no error in my statement. If its £8bn of £112 billion recouped, it's pissing in the wind. It's money lost to private pockets that should be helping the sick, helping the disabled, educating, funding libraries, the list goes on. It's a nice headline grabber, but they're not serious and never will be about helping the %99 over the 1%.

 

 

Doesn't the report say that £8b was collected last year, 

In fact doesn't the report state that an extra £59.5bn in taxes have been collected in the last 3 years. 

and doesn't it show a significant increase year on year. 

 

So how can it be, that nearly 60 billion is pissing in the wind?

[Kingfisher]

It's says it was collected last year, but doesn't say over what period it covers. It also doesn't address the many loopholes still in place. The figure of tax that is being lost massively outstrips these figures. Some estimates put it at £100bn a year.

[colhint]

How do you know it doesn't address any loopholes? And if as you suggest £100bn a year is lost, haven't they just brought that down by £24bn. 

If they keep on like this, isn't it possible they will reduce it further in the next few years. 

[snowychap]

The thing about corporate tax, is that logically, if all things stay the same - their desire for profits etc - the only people who end up paying their tax bill are their customers.

Tax incidence is, indeed, a tricky old thing.

From the little bits I've read, studies tend to show that the majority of an increased corporate tax burden falls upon the companies' workers, though, rather than consumers (though one could argue that generally they'll tend to be the same group).

I don't see this in itself as an argument against corporation tax (though there are plenty) but more of an indication of an imbalance in the power relationships between companies/corporations and their workers.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

The thing about corporate tax, is that logically, if all things stay the same - their desire for profits etc - the only people who end up paying their tax bill are their customers.

Tax incidence is, indeed, a tricky old thing.

From the little bits I've read, studies tend to show that the majority of an increased corporate tax burden falls upon the companies' workers, though, rather than consumers (though one could argue that generally they'll tend to be the same group).

I don't see this in itself as an argument against corporation tax (though there are plenty) but more of an indication of an imbalance in the power relationships between companies/corporations and their workers.

 

 

It does seem reasonable to assume that if a company is forced to pay its workers a 'living wage' of £8 an hour and have their taxes substantially increased, that they would pass those costs on to their customers.

[colhint]

That's true but only to a point. If all costs are passed on and the price increases too much, fewer will be sold. so profits will be down also. So it would be balanced.

[snowychap]

It does seem reasonable to assume that if a company is forced to pay its workers a 'living wage' of £8 an hour and have their taxes substantially increased, that they would pass those costs on to their customers.

I'm not sure it is reasonable to 'assume' anything - the world is not a socratic dialogue merely made real.

Under those precise circumstances then one may expect that companies should try and pass on any increased costs by way of price rises to consumers but whether they could and would depends on a number of things including the PED of their product(s), surely?

Under less precise circumstances and in actuality, results may be very different to those we may assume or expect on paper.

Edited May 29, 2014 by snowychap

[MakemineVanilla]

 

It does seem reasonable to assume that if a company is forced to pay its workers a 'living wage' of £8 an hour and have their taxes substantially increased, that they would pass those costs on to their customers.

I'm not sure it is reasonable to 'assume' anything - the world is not a socratic dialogue merely made real.

Under those precise circumstances then one may expect that companies should try and pass on any increased costs by way of price rises to consumers but whether they could and would depends on a number of things including the PED of their product(s), surely?

Under less precise circumstances and in actuality, results may be very different to those we may assume or expect on paper.

 

 

But the very concept of PED depends on the acceptance that some commodities can be identified as having a greater PED than others, and therefore we can identify those goods which historically have a greater or lesser PED and base our predictions on that evidence.

 

Otherwise we are left in the position where every economic policy is useless, and every statement made about them is meaningless, because we cannot predict the future, we only have our invalid information of what has happened in the past.

 

Your reductio absurdum offers no guide to action or inaction. 

 

What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence.

 

Worse still, your conclusion requires you to attack all opinions as invalid and not just mine.

[snowychap]

Otherwise we are left in the position where every economic policy is useless, and every statement made about them is meaningless, because we cannot predict the future, we only have our invalid information of what has happened in the past.

 

Your reductio absurdum offers no guide to action or inaction. 

I think the irony is that it is your argument that is the example of reductio.

I was merely pointing out that it's folly to rely upon 'assumptions' and, perhaps, fly in the face of evidence which suggests that the end results don't fit with the conclusions drawn as a result of those assumptions made.

Predict, assume, opine - do what you will - but it's not sensible to ignore evidence of what may actually happen because it doesn't sit with the theory, the opinion, the prediction or the assumption.

Question the evidence/studies or the inferences drawn by the researchers or the sample data or whatever but don't state 'it is reasonable to assume x' and then get hissy when someone points out not that you can't be making assuptions but rather that your assumptions may well turn out to be false.

Edit: One paper and another. And no, I haven't read them - they were linked in something I was reading on the topic as posted earlier (the little bits I've read).

Edited May 29, 2014 by snowychap

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

[MakemineVanilla]

 

Otherwise we are left in the position where every economic policy is useless, and every statement made about them is meaningless, because we cannot predict the future, we only have our invalid information of what has happened in the past.

 

Your reductio absurdum offers no guide to action or inaction. 

I think the irony is that it is your argument that is the example of reductio.

I was merely pointing out that it's folly to rely upon 'assumptions' and, perhaps, fly in the face of evidence which suggests that the end results don't fit with the conclusions drawn as a result of those assumptions made.

Predict, assume, opine - do what you will - but it's not sensible to ignore evidence of what may actually happen because it doesn't sit with the theory, the opinion, the prediction or the assumption.

Question the evidence/studies or the inferences drawn by the researchers or the sample data or whatever but don't state 'it is reasonable to assume x' and then get hissy when someone points out not that you can't be making assuptions but rather that your assumptions may well turn out to be false.

Edit: One paper and another. And no, I haven't read them - they were linked in something I was reading on the topic as posted earlier (the little bits I've read).

 

 

Funny enough there is an article in today's Guardian about the economist Ha-Joon Chang and it had this interesting quote: 

" there is no objective truth on which every economist is agreed. Economics can never be a science in the way that physics is; it cannot reach a consensus on its fundamental questions, let alone what the answers are"

 

http://tinyurl.com/lp2dmn8

 

So it does seem a bit daft of us to get dragged into a strop about these things.

 

Two brummies re-enacting the Wittgenstein v Karl Popper 'poker' scene, sounds like a Monty Python sketch. 

 

Edit: Thanks for the links!

Edited May 29, 2014 by MakemineVanilla

[MakemineVanilla]

 

That is fantastic.

 

It is a strong reminder that the English only vote for thin people.

 

Amazingly Alex Salmond still looks Scottish and Cameron looks like a wicked cardinal from Wolf Hall.

Edited May 29, 2014 by MakemineVanilla

[snowychap]

So it does seem a bit daft of us to get dragged into a strop about these things.

Yes, that's true.

Apologies for the 'hissy' comment; it was uncalled for and ott (in mitigation I'd just finished a lengthy email to a council department about my father so was a tad 'tense' but still no excuse).

 

Two brummies re-enacting the Wittgenstein v Karl Popper 'poker' scene, sounds like a Monty Python sketch. 

As the cricket thread will attest, I'm not a brummie - though I like the idea.

Worcestershire, la la la.

 

Edit: Thanks for the links!

No probs.

Edited May 29, 2014 by snowychap

[Kingfisher]

How do you know it doesn't address any loopholes? And if as you suggest £100bn a year is lost, haven't they just brought that down by £24bn.

If they keep on like this, isn't it possible they will reduce it further in the next few years.

I didn't say it hasn't addressed any, but the article states clearly that amazon are still legally avoiding tax. When companies are paying all the tax they should we can be happy. This headline grabbing £8bn is too little too late for a government that's failed to ensure we get all the tax revenue we should, whilst perusing a policy of cuts.

[blandy]

The thing about corporate tax, is that logically, if all things stay the same - their desire for profits etc - the only people who end up paying their tax bill are their customers.

 

So if you increase the tax on Amazon et al, they simply put their prices up and their customers, rich and poor alike, pay those taxes, which is regressive

 

This is a double-whammy for the poor customer because they not only have to pay the higher price, they also have to hand another 20% of the price rise to the government.

 

Stuff bought on Amazon, supplied from Jersey, and paid through Luxembourg, is cheaper than stuff bought in the UK, as a result.

 

It seems possible that when we seek to punish big business we might end up punishing ourselves...

The thing with Amazon, is that they do charge less ( a bit) because they pay no tax. So they undercut UK based shops and internet retailers, and put them out of business, so we lose out on the tax, and we lost out on empty high streets, and we lose out on benefits for the unemployed shop workers.

If they were to pay tax, they couldn't charge more than the competition - it would hit their margins, sure, but they're ultra profitable. If the result was a few pence on a book or CD or gizmo - they sell luxuries, basically, then no one loses and everyone gains. It's not rocket science.

[villaajax]

 

That could actually be what Camoron looks like in a few years time.

[Demitri_C]

My god question time has that scumbag joey barton on it tonight this should be fun

[chrisp65]

My god question time has that scumbag joey barton on it tonight this should be fun

 

I'd hate it if he ended up in a fight with Piers Morgan and they both suffered terrible injuries and couldn't talk anymore.

[Demitri_C]

5 minutes in and joey barton has made me laugh talking about comparing the four political parties like 4 ugly girls ukip being the ugliest haha

 

 

[Mantis]

Piers Morgan and Joey Barton? I can't believe taxpayer money is being wasted on them two.