Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The economics of LICE. How do we deal with parasite taxation ?

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 10 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The economics of LICE. How do we deal with parasite taxation ?

LICE – Luxembourg, Ireland, Channel Isles, Estonia – we could add others and play alphabet soup, but the basic premise is the same small countries which live well by diverting the tax revenues of their larger neighbours. These are parasites not in the derogatory sense but in the biological sense of entities which live off others. This is not new, tax havens have been around for centuries but largely as an irritant to those next door. However in the last two decades things have changed.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,648
    edited January 10
    First! Like no to no deal
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 9,772
    "In the UK there is anywhere from £6-11 billion to be recovered annually depending on whose figures you chose to believe and that’s corporate tax avoidance not evasion. That’s like a 3p tax cut or 100,000 units of social housing each year or half of Mrs May’s NHS funding boost for free. The question is therefore how long will our politicians hold off from addressing the issue ?"

    We've been addressing it over and over again since about 2008?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177
    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,648

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,207
    edited January 10
    How to deal with parasite taxation? Use taxes that are hard to parasite.

    * VAT. On everything. Make it simple, scrap the exemptions and zero-rates
    * Lots more tax on all the negative externalities, especially fuel
    * Steeper income tax curve to make up for any regressive effects of the above
    * Get rid of all the silly tax breaks like CGT relief on your first home
    * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,172
    edited January 10
    @SeanT

    fpt
    SeanT said:

    I will happily confess I am indeed confused. Who isn’t? Brexit has become Fermat’s Last Theorem. There are a million suggested solutions and none of them seem quite right.

    On reflection, if we revoke A50, then invoke it again we could ask for Norway plus without the WA. The WA would be dead in that situation. We’d be starting anew. Whether the EU would agree is moot. I suspect they would. But who knows.

    The EU (much to @Richard_Nabavi's chagrin) stipulated that the WA must be signed before we can begin to negotiate the future relationship. So not sure that would be the case although if we rocked up and said: "here this is what we want" then maybe they would consider that.

    Of course we have no idea what we want so the chances of that happening are pretty small.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,896
    Surely it should be LICES

    Switzerland’s enjoys the fruits of our effect taking advantage of its semi detached status as a viable corporate headquarters.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 29,650
    A very good article. Top work!
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,445
    Of course, this all comes at a potential cost - potential loss of investment, potential loss of jobs etc etc. It all comes down to how competitive and attractive you want your economy to be. Tax is one of the more significant costs any business will face. It’s only natural that companies will seek to avoid or reduce that cost in the same way they look to minimise procurement or payroll costs or eliminate unnecessary overhead. As long as that incentive to reduce tax exists, so will tax havens.

    The only way to proceed is by legislation. You can reduce corporation tax or close loopholes like transfer pricing and mismatchif dividend and interest deductibility. These have all been tried before of course and serve to make the tax code more not less complex.

    The sensible way, albeit, untried and untested, would be to change the basis of tax altogether and base it on sales rather than profit, which is far more subjective. The only alternative is to copy the US and have an alternative minimum tax calculation to try and ensure that every business pays at least something.

  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 4,339
    What has Bercow done that’s so egregious? He’s allowed parliament to put a firecracker up Theresa’s jacksie. This is a bad thing why?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,896
    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%
    Number 10 are sure to be in touch to ask you to flesh out your meteor option. Apparently Spacebourne freight offer a meteor delivery service.

  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,445
    Jonathan said:

    Surely it should be LICES

    Switzerland’s enjoys the fruits of our effect taking advantage of its semi detached status as a viable corporate headquarters.

    You have to have your administrative and management headquarters and employees,or that of your operating subsidiary, based there to benefit from those tax deals which are all of fixed duration (albeit renewable) and negotiable.

    That is not the case in Britain as Amazon and Google demonstrate.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    What has Bercow done that’s so egregious? He’s allowed parliament to put a firecracker up Theresa’s jacksie. This is a bad thing why?

    Because the Daily Mail and the PB Tories don't like it.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,507
    edited January 10
    Mr Brooke,

    An interesting header which bring up things which most people ignore.

    There is an awakening going on now prompted by the Brexit referendum (what else). PB regulars aren't representative of the general public and neither is Parliament. There was a lazy assumption that Parliament was there to represent the voters. MPs know better.

    The voters aren't there to be represented, they are there to be persuaded. If they won't be persuaded, they are there to be told. The current shenanigans have brought this into sharp focus. The facts were always clear from day one. MPs have a majority of Remainers, but initially, they needed to pretend they were listening. "We, of course, will honour the referendum result … but …"

    The mask is off now. The LDs and a few others were honest from the start, the others merely obstructive. until the time was right. MPs hardly ever change their mind, voters sometimes do.

    Even convincing voters that tightening up tax regulations is pointless. Unless politicians see a benefit for themselves, it will not happen.

    I'm amused by John Bercow. He's a Remainer and wears the badge proudly. No more pandering to people he regards as below him. The mark of a bully? Mind your own business, and leave your betters to their task.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 7,423
    I don't know how you deal with this without clobbering companies that are "genuinely" exporting across borders.

    So I've recently bought a bunch of stuff from Amazon EU - a company registered in Luxembourg. Most likely none of the goods I've bought will go through Luxembourg. They will be packaged and sent to me from UK warehouses after being imported from China via Rotterdam. This intuitively feels like a tax dodge and it is. But how do you make the distinction in law?

    Consider a theoretical jam company that started out on a family orchard in Luxembourg, growing plums and making delicious plum jam. It's registered in Luxembourg, because of course it is. Where else would it be registered? It's jam is delicious and it sells across the world via the internet. It doesn't pay any UK corporation tax and intuitively this does not feel like a tax dodge and it isn't.

    However, the company is very successful. It starts to sell a lot of jam. More jam than can be made with plums grown in Luxembourg. So the company starts to buy plums grown in many other countries and it sets up a large new jam-making factory in Belgium. Soon, most of the jam it sells in the UK is made from fruit grown anywhere other than Luxembourg and never passes through Luxembourg. Is this a tax dodge? Intuitively this doesn't feel like a tax dodge to me as the company is registered in Luxembourg for "genuine" historical reasons.

    Legally I don't see any difference with the way that Amazon operates.

    It feels like you would need a major up-ending of the tax system to adapt for this.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177
    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Until there is some cohesion behind an alternative, we can safely say no such thing.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,207
    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    I would almost exactly agree except:

    - Revocation: 10%

    + Revocation: 5%
    + Endless extensions: 5%
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,896

    Jonathan said:

    Surely it should be LICES

    Switzerland’s enjoys the fruits of our effect taking advantage of its semi detached status as a viable corporate headquarters.

    You have to have your administrative and management headquarters and employees,or that of your operating subsidiary, based there to benefit from those tax deals which are all of fixed duration (albeit renewable) and negotiable.

    That is not the case in Britain as Amazon and Google demonstrate.
    It’s something you can easily work around. Boxes can be ticked.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 1,730
    Nice to see a tax article - thanks @alanbrooke - and the linked Guardian piece is also well worth a read.

    I think the point about concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals using secrecy jurisdictions is well made but the link between that issue and the taxation of large MNCs is perhaps more tenuous. There has been a massive amount of work on international corporate tax transparency and anti-avoidance in the last decade, mostly under the auspices of the OECD but with the U.K. typically one of the early adopters, sometimes implementing stronger measures than required. The complexity of tax compliance for a U.K. subsidiary of a multinational group has increased perhaps threefold in that time because of (for example) the need to consider interest deductibility requirements and anti-hybrid legislation which frequently depends on understanding on how transactions will be taxed in other countries in order to comply with U.K. legislation. Other broadly drafted rules like the diverted profits tax make it a lot harder to be certain of how normal commercial cross-border transactions will be taxed. Transfer pricing requirements are far more onerous and country-by-country reporting has also increased transparency (and work).

    I’m not suggesting these rules are a bad thing, but it’s difficult to see that this is an area where politicians have avoided addressing the issues. It would be interesting to hear suggestions of further changes to the corporate tax system which would make a significant difference, short of moving towards a single European/global consolidated corporate tax base, which is generally seen as too much of a surrender of sovereignty to contemplate.

    As @edmundintokyo points out, looking at individual income, wealth and consumption taxes is probably the best bet.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177

    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    I would almost exactly agree except:

    - Revocation: 10%

    + Revocation: 5%
    + Endless extensions: 5%
    But "second vote" is actually about four different 10% options....
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,618
    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    A second referendum is not an outcome, it is a process: a means to an end. The outcomes you should be quoting probabilities on are;
    - May's Deal
    - Remain
    - No Deal
    - Some other deal (specify)

    If a second vote is 40%, then what we should be doing is splitting that down to, say Remain 20%, No Deal 15%, May's Deal 5%, and adding those to the outcomes arrived at through parliament. (Of course, it's hard to model the odds there without knowing the options that would be put, and the mechanics of the question/s they'd be put by).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,512


    The sensible way, albeit, untried and untested, would be to change the basis of tax altogether and base it on sales rather than profit, which is far more subjective. The only alternative is to copy the US and have an alternative minimum tax calculation to try and ensure that every business pays at least something.

    Ummm. No.

    We already have a sales tax, it's called VAT, and it already raises more than twice as much as corporation tax (https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178).

    But, of course, some sales - such as those to entities outside the EU are exempt from VAT. So we could raise more from our sales tax by extending their reach. At the cost, of course, of effectively imposing tariffs on our own exports.

    Finally, attempting to move the overall tax from profits to sales ignores the fact that some businesses are inherently low margin - such as distribution or retail - and some are high margin.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,610
    Seems to be a distinct lack of post-cancelled-Brexit planning afoot.

    Does any wing of any party have a plan to deal with the coming storm ?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,610
    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    Fudge/Can Kicking 95%
    Clean Brexit on 29th March 5%

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,850
    edited January 10
    "For the UK this is a real issue just why do we want to impoverish our own people so overseas corporations can walk away from paying their obligations? Why do we need to subsidise Jeff Bezos to empty our tax paying high streets?"

    Being part of a large, coordinated group of countries, most of which have very strong motivation to address this, would seem to be way forward here.

    Globalisation will require a major shift in the relationship between states and corporations, and it has hardly begun. It *will* happen, though, because there are millions and millions of votes to be won by cutting this particular Gordian knot.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,512
    SeanT said:

    The price the EU will exact for supporting Ireland on the backstop is the harmonization of EU corporate tax. That much is clear. Dublin is in for a shock.

    They didn't cave in 2010 when faced with bankrupcy.

    In any case, as Alanbrooke has made clear, it's not just Ireland any more. It's also Estonia, Cyprus, Malta, Luxembourg...
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,618
    On topic, we need a turnover tax. Tax businesses on their topline on all activity (above a threshold) within a tax territory. For the purposes of online transactions, the physical location should be regarded as the location of the place where:
    1. the service is to be performed;
    2. the good is to be delivered

    So if I am ordering a sweatshirt from a Thai manufacturer, via an Irish-registered company on a US-based server, while I'm on holiday in Spain (I'm not, just in case you're wondering), the supplying company still pays the tax to the UK exchequer because the sweatshirt will be delivered to an address near Wakefield.
  • SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    I would almost exactly agree except:

    - Revocation: 10%

    + Revocation: 5%
    + Endless extensions: 5%
    In agreement here pretty much with Edmund and - Saints preserve us - SeanT. I'd maybe have revocation at 15% and TM deal down at 25% but that's quibbling.

    At a recent discussion amongst racing friends in the bar at Cheltenham racecourse I was astonished at the degree of consensus amongst a group not noted for its uniformity. Everybody agreed 2nd vote was the logical outcome, but as one of the group put it, ''...if logic had anything to do with it, we wouldn't be where we are."
  • eekeek Posts: 3,904
    SeanT said:

    The price the EU will exact for supporting Ireland on the backstop is the harmonization of EU corporate tax. That much is clear. Dublin is in for a shock.

    I suspect that will be offset by being the only English speaking country left in the EU
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,782
    Anorak said:

    "For the UK this is a real issue just why do we want to impoverish our own people so overseas corporations can walk away from paying their obligations? Why do we need to subsidise Jeff Bezos to empty our tax paying high streets?"

    Being part of a large, coordinated group of countries, most of which have very strong motivation to address this, would seem to be way forward here.

    Yes, let’s do that and choose the PM of Luxembourg to lead the fight.

    The EU has actually had plenty of time to do something about this, and instead it has rewarded one of the main breeders of Lice.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,512

    On topic, we need a turnover tax. Tax businesses on their topline on all activity (above a threshold) within a tax territory. For the purposes of online transactions, the physical location should be regarded as the location of the place where:
    1. the service is to be performed;
    2. the good is to be delivered

    So if I am ordering a sweatshirt from a Thai manufacturer, via an Irish-registered company on a US-based server, while I'm on holiday in Spain (I'm not, just in case you're wondering), the supplying company still pays the tax to the UK exchequer because the sweatshirt will be delivered to an address near Wakefield.

    So, if I create a website in LA, which serves articles about food in LA, and people from the UK visit it, and generate advertising revenue for me...

    Am I liable for UK tax?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,512

    On topic, we need a turnover tax. Tax businesses on their topline on all activity (above a threshold) within a tax territory. For the purposes of online transactions, the physical location should be regarded as the location of the place where:
    1. the service is to be performed;
    2. the good is to be delivered

    So if I am ordering a sweatshirt from a Thai manufacturer, via an Irish-registered company on a US-based server, while I'm on holiday in Spain (I'm not, just in case you're wondering), the supplying company still pays the tax to the UK exchequer because the sweatshirt will be delivered to an address near Wakefield.

    We have a turnover tax. It's called VAT.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,460

    What has Bercow done that’s so egregious? He’s allowed parliament to put a firecracker up Theresa’s jacksie. This is a bad thing why?

    This is one of those (increasingly common) occasions where you want both sides to lose.

    You are right that May is getting what she deserves for trying to circumvent Parliament. So the outcome is beneficial and welcome in the short term.

    But by throwing away both precedent and legal advice and doing it in the way he has, Bercow had fatally undermined the neutrality of the Speaker's position and ensured it will be a far more political and far less balanced office in the future. He has done real and permanent damage to Parliament.

    The operation may have been a success but the patient has died.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,473
    edited January 10

    On topic, we need a turnover tax. Tax businesses on their topline on all activity (above a threshold) within a tax territory. For the purposes of online transactions, the physical location should be regarded as the location of the place where:
    1. the service is to be performed;
    2. the good is to be delivered

    So if I am ordering a sweatshirt from a Thai manufacturer, via an Irish-registered company on a US-based server, while I'm on holiday in Spain (I'm not, just in case you're wondering), the supplying company still pays the tax to the UK exchequer because the sweatshirt will be delivered to an address near Wakefield.

    David, what happens when a parent runs a contract through a wholly owned UK subsidiary on a 1% fee basis and that contract is responsible for say 10* the normal annual turnover of the company but only generates a small % of the total profit for the year ?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,172
    If we're doing percentages then they are the following:

    May's Deal: 85%
    A50 extension, referendum (May's Deal vs Remain): 15%.

    Let's move on. Good article about tax Alan. I read the same kind of thing in the Graun every other week and, as @Polruan has noted, it ain't quite as easy as collecting an extra £6-11bn or it would have already been done (cf. government "efficiency" savings).
  • TGOHF said:

    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    Fudge/Can Kicking 95%
    Clean Brexit on 29th March 5%

    But the Speaker has confiscated her can.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,610
    TOPPING said:

    If we're doing percentages then they are the following:

    May's Deal: 85%
    A50 extension, referendum (May's Deal vs Remain): 15%.

    Let's move on. Good article about tax Alan. I read the same kind of thing in the Graun every other week and, as @Polruan has noted, it ain't quite as easy as collecting an extra £6-11bn or it would have already been done (cf. government "efficiency" savings).

    Very bold Topping -who will change their minds - soft Labour, the DUP , the ERG ?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,460

    On topic, we need a turnover tax. Tax businesses on their topline on all activity (above a threshold) within a tax territory. For the purposes of online transactions, the physical location should be regarded as the location of the place where:
    1. the service is to be performed;
    2. the good is to be delivered

    So if I am ordering a sweatshirt from a Thai manufacturer, via an Irish-registered company on a US-based server, while I'm on holiday in Spain (I'm not, just in case you're wondering), the supplying company still pays the tax to the UK exchequer because the sweatshirt will be delivered to an address near Wakefield.

    Isn't the problem with a turnover tax that it penalises those companies with very low profit margins on very high turnover (and in many cases would make them unsustainable) whilst allowing low turnover companies with very high profit margins to get away with paying very little tax?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,610

    TGOHF said:

    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    Fudge/Can Kicking 95%
    Clean Brexit on 29th March 5%

    But the Speaker has confiscated her can.
    A50 extension would be covered under that.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,172
    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    If we're doing percentages then they are the following:

    May's Deal: 85%
    A50 extension, referendum (May's Deal vs Remain): 15%.

    Let's move on. Good article about tax Alan. I read the same kind of thing in the Graun every other week and, as @Polruan has noted, it ain't quite as easy as collecting an extra £6-11bn or it would have already been done (cf. government "efficiency" savings).

    Very bold Topping -who will change their minds - soft Labour, the DUP , the ERG ?
    A-HA! Facts you want, is it? Not 100% sure.

    But I will start with some Cons. Who? Absofuckinglutely no idea
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177
    edited January 10

    TGOHF said:

    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    Fudge/Can Kicking 95%
    Clean Brexit on 29th March 5%

    But the Speaker has confiscated her can.
    He really hasn't. What happens when no can-kicking option achieves a concensus?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,207

    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    A second referendum is not an outcome, it is a process: a means to an end. The outcomes you should be quoting probabilities on are;
    - May's Deal
    - Remain
    - No Deal
    - Some other deal (specify)

    If a second vote is 40%, then what we should be doing is splitting that down to, say Remain 20%, No Deal 15%, May's Deal 5%, and adding those to the outcomes arrived at through parliament. (Of course, it's hard to model the odds there without knowing the options that would be put, and the mechanics of the question/s they'd be put by).
    OK here goes:

    40%

    ->

    Remain: 25%
    Deal: 12.5%
    No Deal: 2% (It's low mainly because I think the changes of it being on the ballot paper are low)
    Black swan / blessed merciful meteor of death: 0.5%
  • Polruan said:

    Nice to see a tax article - thanks @alanbrooke - and the linked Guardian piece is also well worth a read.

    I think the point about concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals using secrecy jurisdictions is well made but the link between that issue and the taxation of large MNCs is perhaps more tenuous. There has been a massive amount of work on international corporate tax transparency and anti-avoidance in the last decade, mostly under the auspices of the OECD but with the U.K. typically one of the early adopters, sometimes implementing stronger measures than required. The complexity of tax compliance for a U.K. subsidiary of a multinational group has increased perhaps threefold in that time because of (for example) the need to consider interest deductibility requirements and anti-hybrid legislation which frequently depends on understanding on how transactions will be taxed in other countries in order to comply with U.K. legislation. Other broadly drafted rules like the diverted profits tax make it a lot harder to be certain of how normal commercial cross-border transactions will be taxed. Transfer pricing requirements are far more onerous and country-by-country reporting has also increased transparency (and work).

    I’m not suggesting these rules are a bad thing, but it’s difficult to see that this is an area where politicians have avoided addressing the issues. It would be interesting to hear suggestions of further changes to the corporate tax system which would make a significant difference, short of moving towards a single European/global consolidated corporate tax base, which is generally seen as too much of a surrender of sovereignty to contemplate.

    As @edmundintokyo points out, looking at individual income, wealth and consumption taxes is probably the best bet.

    Didn't Osborne float the idea of a General Anti-Avoidance Rule [GAAR]? They work well in many countries, but are maybe a bit despotic and arbitrary for British tastes.

    Personally I'd go for it. Would put a lot of lawyers out of work for a start, and that has to be a good thing.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,618
    rcs1000 said:

    On topic, we need a turnover tax. Tax businesses on their topline on all activity (above a threshold) within a tax territory. For the purposes of online transactions, the physical location should be regarded as the location of the place where:
    1. the service is to be performed;
    2. the good is to be delivered

    So if I am ordering a sweatshirt from a Thai manufacturer, via an Irish-registered company on a US-based server, while I'm on holiday in Spain (I'm not, just in case you're wondering), the supplying company still pays the tax to the UK exchequer because the sweatshirt will be delivered to an address near Wakefield.

    We have a turnover tax. It's called VAT.
    Of a sort. But it's subject to tax haven manipulation. it's also subject to all sorts of reclamations and exemptions.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,473
    edited January 10

    On topic, we need a turnover tax. Tax businesses on their topline on all activity (above a threshold) within a tax territory. For the purposes of online transactions, the physical location should be regarded as the location of the place where:
    1. the service is to be performed;
    2. the good is to be delivered

    So if I am ordering a sweatshirt from a Thai manufacturer, via an Irish-registered company on a US-based server, while I'm on holiday in Spain (I'm not, just in case you're wondering), the supplying company still pays the tax to the UK exchequer because the sweatshirt will be delivered to an address near Wakefield.

    Isn't the problem with a turnover tax that it penalises those companies with very low profit margins on very high turnover (and in many cases would make them unsustainable) whilst allowing low turnover companies with very high profit margins to get away with paying very little tax?
    We're currently running some very high value contracts for a small fee... moreover these measures aimed at the B2C monoliths could have massive unintended consequences on B2B (VAT on EVERYTHING would kill B2B export for instance).
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,460

    Polruan said:

    Nice to see a tax article - thanks @alanbrooke - and the linked Guardian piece is also well worth a read.

    I think the point about concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals using secrecy jurisdictions is well made but the link between that issue and the taxation of large MNCs is perhaps more tenuous. There has been a massive amount of work on international corporate tax transparency and anti-avoidance in the last decade, mostly under the auspices of the OECD but with the U.K. typically one of the early adopters, sometimes implementing stronger measures than required. The complexity of tax compliance for a U.K. subsidiary of a multinational group has increased perhaps threefold in that time because of (for example) the need to consider interest deductibility requirements and anti-hybrid legislation which frequently depends on understanding on how transactions will be taxed in other countries in order to comply with U.K. legislation. Other broadly drafted rules like the diverted profits tax make it a lot harder to be certain of how normal commercial cross-border transactions will be taxed. Transfer pricing requirements are far more onerous and country-by-country reporting has also increased transparency (and work).

    I’m not suggesting these rules are a bad thing, but it’s difficult to see that this is an area where politicians have avoided addressing the issues. It would be interesting to hear suggestions of further changes to the corporate tax system which would make a significant difference, short of moving towards a single European/global consolidated corporate tax base, which is generally seen as too much of a surrender of sovereignty to contemplate.

    As @edmundintokyo points out, looking at individual income, wealth and consumption taxes is probably the best bet.

    Didn't Osborne float the idea of a General Anti-Avoidance Rule [GAAR]? They work well in many countries, but are maybe a bit despotic and arbitrary for British tastes.

    Personally I'd go for it. Would put a lot of lawyers out of work for a start, and that has to be a good thing.
    Short of changing the whole basis of our legal system it would be unworkable and in fact would have even more lawyers employed challenging cases. It might put dodgy accountants out of business though.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,610

    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    A second referendum is not an outcome, it is a process: a means to an end. The outcomes you should be quoting probabilities on are;
    - May's Deal
    - Remain
    - No Deal
    - Some other deal (specify)

    If a second vote is 40%, then what we should be doing is splitting that down to, say Remain 20%, No Deal 15%, May's Deal 5%, and adding those to the outcomes arrived at through parliament. (Of course, it's hard to model the odds there without knowing the options that would be put, and the mechanics of the question/s they'd be put by).
    OK here goes:

    40%

    ->

    Remain: 25%
    Deal: 12.5%
    No Deal: 2% (It's low mainly because I think the changes of it being on the ballot paper are low)
    Black swan / blessed merciful meteor of death: 0.5%
    Second referendum would go one of 2 ways in my opinion

    if same question as last time = same result

    if rigged question e.g. deal vs remain, then a massive fall in turnout to say 30-40% probably backed by overt calls to boycott the referendum by Farage etc and a clean win for Remain. Remain would claim victory and 20+ years of further bitterness ensue as the EU rub our noses in it financially.





  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,460
    TGOHF said:

    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    A second referendum is not an outcome, it is a process: a means to an end. The outcomes you should be quoting probabilities on are;
    - May's Deal
    - Remain
    - No Deal
    - Some other deal (specify)

    If a second vote is 40%, then what we should be doing is splitting that down to, say Remain 20%, No Deal 15%, May's Deal 5%, and adding those to the outcomes arrived at through parliament. (Of course, it's hard to model the odds there without knowing the options that would be put, and the mechanics of the question/s they'd be put by).
    OK here goes:

    40%

    ->

    Remain: 25%
    Deal: 12.5%
    No Deal: 2% (It's low mainly because I think the changes of it being on the ballot paper are low)
    Black swan / blessed merciful meteor of death: 0.5%
    Second referendum would go one of 2 ways in my opinion

    if same question as last time = same result

    if rigged question e.g. deal vs remain, then a massive fall in turnout to say 30-40% probably backed by overt calls to boycott the referendum by Farage etc and a clean win for Remain. Remain would claim victory and 20+ years of further bitterness ensue as the EU rub our noses in it financially.

    And all the social and political consequences of legitimising extremists and destroying public faith in democratic systems in this country.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,618
    rcs1000 said:

    On topic, we need a turnover tax. Tax businesses on their topline on all activity (above a threshold) within a tax territory. For the purposes of online transactions, the physical location should be regarded as the location of the place where:
    1. the service is to be performed;
    2. the good is to be delivered

    So if I am ordering a sweatshirt from a Thai manufacturer, via an Irish-registered company on a US-based server, while I'm on holiday in Spain (I'm not, just in case you're wondering), the supplying company still pays the tax to the UK exchequer because the sweatshirt will be delivered to an address near Wakefield.

    So, if I create a website in LA, which serves articles about food in LA, and people from the UK visit it, and generate advertising revenue for me...

    Am I liable for UK tax?
    I'm neither a tax lawyer nor a parliamentary draftsman so apologies if this isn't fully thought through. My initial thought would be that it depends on how you run your website but probably not. If the advertising results in a UK-based person placing an order, I would have thought that it would be the company they place an order with that would be liable for tax, unless your contract with them specifies otherwise.

    If the ad agency is based in Britain, there'd be a tax liability but I assume it'd be the agency that'd pay it.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,610

    TGOHF said:

    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    A second referendum is not an outcome, it is a process: a means to an end. The outcomes you should be quoting probabilities on are;
    - May's Deal
    - Remain
    - No Deal
    - Some other deal (specify)

    If a second vote is 40%, then what we should be doing is splitting that down to, say Remain 20%, No Deal 15%, May's Deal 5%, and adding those to the outcomes arrived at through parliament. (Of course, it's hard to model the odds there without knowing the options that would be put, and the mechanics of the question/s they'd be put by).
    OK here goes:

    40%

    ->

    Remain: 25%
    Deal: 12.5%
    No Deal: 2% (It's low mainly because I think the changes of it being on the ballot paper are low)
    Black swan / blessed merciful meteor of death: 0.5%
    Second referendum would go one of 2 ways in my opinion

    if same question as last time = same result

    if rigged question e.g. deal vs remain, then a massive fall in turnout to say 30-40% probably backed by overt calls to boycott the referendum by Farage etc and a clean win for Remain. Remain would claim victory and 20+ years of further bitterness ensue as the EU rub our noses in it financially.

    And all the social and political consequences of legitimising extremists and destroying public faith in democratic systems in this country.
    I'd like to see remainers pushed on their plans to deal with cancelled Brexit - which taxes will rise to cover our lost rebate and how will they restore the trust of voters ?

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177
    edited January 10
    TGOHF said:

    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    A second referendum is not an outcome, it is a process: a means to an end. The outcomes you should be quoting probabilities on are;
    - May's Deal
    - Remain
    - No Deal
    - Some other deal (specify)

    If a second vote is 40%, then what we should be doing is splitting that down to, say Remain 20%, No Deal 15%, May's Deal 5%, and adding those to the outcomes arrived at through parliament. (Of course, it's hard to model the odds there without knowing the options that would be put, and the mechanics of the question/s they'd be put by).
    OK here goes:

    40%

    ->

    Remain: 25%
    Deal: 12.5%
    No Deal: 2% (It's low mainly because I think the changes of it being on the ballot paper are low)
    Black swan / blessed merciful meteor of death: 0.5%
    Second referendum would go one of 2 ways in my opinion

    if same question as last time = same result

    if rigged question e.g. deal vs remain, then a massive fall in turnout to say 30-40% probably backed by overt calls to boycott the referendum by Farage etc and a clean win for Remain. Remain would claim victory and 20+ years of further bitterness ensue as the EU rub our noses in it financially.
    Those who would see us wearing the blue and gold-starred gimp suit as we cravenly ask to go back in appear to have no idea of the shit-storm of EU-hatred they would unleash.

    At some point, in the near future, a party will gain a majority, pledged to implement No Deal Brexit. It will use the 2016 Referendum and have no other obligation to ask the voters for authority to trigger Article 50 than their Manifesto commitment to do so.

    The EU will be sat around waiting for this to happen, knowing that our commitment to their glorious Project is merely short term. Why the hell would they want us back, when they now have festering sores of Italy and Poland and Hungary to deal with?
  • BudGBudG Posts: 692

    TGOHF said:

    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    Fudge/Can Kicking 95%
    Clean Brexit on 29th March 5%

    But the Speaker has confiscated her can.
    I think her response required within 3 sitting days of a defeat will be to say she is asking the EU for a new can and some more road to kick it down.


  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,507
    edited January 10
    I've done a risk/benefit analysis on a re-run of the referendum. It depends on the result which complicates matters, so …


    (1) A big majority for Remain. Advantages ... it clears things up and we carry on with normal politics. The Remainers can gloat. Risks … residual bitterness, and being a laughing stock in Europe. But this applies to (2) as well. However this result is also very unlikely.

    (2) A narrow Remain win. More likely, but it solves nothing and exacerbates divisions. Why not a re-run of the re-run next year? the sore continues with added irritation.

    (3) A narrow Leave win. It solves nothing, but even having had a re-run sullies our reputation. Parliament won't change its mind. It may lie about this, but it won't.


    A revocation, or delay by Parliament is the other option (it amounts to the same thing). All the risks of the above with knobs on.

  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 1,655
    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    I'd go for TMay's Deal at 40% with the fairly large proviso that it may no longer be recognisable as TMay's Deal.

    It will very probably have a permanent customs union bolted onto it, and maybe even more. The only pathway I can see for her is Labour support - whether endorsed by the front bench or not - and they will extract their pound of flesh.

    35% #peoplesvote, 5% revocation, otherwise as you say.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 29,195

    How to deal with parasite taxation? Use taxes that are hard to parasite.

    * VAT. On everything. Make it simple, scrap the exemptions and zero-rates
    * Lots more tax on all the negative externalities, especially fuel
    * Steeper income tax curve to make up for any regressive effects of the above
    * Get rid of all the silly tax breaks like CGT relief on your first home
    * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

    You’re not a politician, are you?

    You’ve be dragged from your chair within days if you tried to do that.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,434
    CES 2019: 'Award-winning' sex toy for women withdrawn from show

    "We firmly believe that women, non-binary, gender non-conforming, and LGBTQI folks should be vocally claiming our space in pleasure and tech," she said.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46809807

    The required gender descriptors are now getting as long as those legal warnings you see on US tv for anything medical.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,648

    TGOHF said:

    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    A second referendum is not an outcome, it is a process: a means to an end. The outcomes you should be quoting probabilities on are;
    - May's Deal
    - Remain
    - No Deal
    - Some other deal (specify)

    If a second vote is 40%, then what we should be doing is splitting that down to, say Remain 20%, No Deal 15%, May's Deal 5%, and adding those to the outcomes arrived at through parliament. (Of course, it's hard to model the odds there without knowing the options that would be put, and the mechanics of the question/s they'd be put by).
    OK here goes:

    40%

    ->

    Remain: 25%
    Deal: 12.5%
    No Deal: 2% (It's low mainly because I think the changes of it being on the ballot paper are low)
    Black swan / blessed merciful meteor of death: 0.5%
    Second referendum would go one of 2 ways in my opinion

    if same question as last time = same result

    if rigged question e.g. deal vs remain, then a massive fall in turnout to say 30-40% probably backed by overt calls to boycott the referendum by Farage etc and a clean win for Remain. Remain would claim victory and 20+ years of further bitterness ensue as the EU rub our noses in it financially.
    Those who would see us wearing the blue and gold-starred gimp suit as we cravenly ask to go back in appear to have no idea of the shit-storm of EU-hatred they would unleash.

    At some point, in the near future, a party will gain a majority, pledged to implement No Deal Brexit. It will use the 2016 Referendum and have no other obligation to ask the voters for authority to trigger Article 50 than their Manifesto commitment to do so.

    The EU will be sat around waiting for this to happen, knowing that our commitment to their glorious Project is merely short term. Why the hell would they want us back, when they now have festering sores of Italy and Poland and Hungary to deal with?
    Lol. in reality if there is a clean rejection of Brexit (a big if, for sure), public appetite ever to go through the whole thing again will be close to zero. Just as Brexit has already killed off proto-exit stirrings in the rest of the EU.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 29,195
    SeanT said:

    The price the EU will exact for supporting Ireland on the backstop is the harmonization of EU corporate tax. That much is clear. Dublin is in for a shock.

    Eire has very little influence over the internal power centres of the EU.

    The EU supported Eire over the backstop because its interests and those of Ireland coaligned.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    SeanT said:

    Thought: ‪People advocating No Deal (including me when drunk) remind me of the boffins who exploded the 1st atom bomb.

    They knew it would be powerful, do some damage, but also end the war: a good thing. But they also thought there was a 10% risk it would ignite the atmosphere, killing the entire world‬.

    Hm.

    No. The boffins did not think there was a 10% chance the atom bomb would kill the whole world.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,457
    Excellent article, thanks Alanbrooke. It's an area where the populists, on this issue from Trump to Corbyn, have a legitimate point, and the cosy consensus that globalisation is painless is simply wrong - though the comments from Polruan, who is by no means a right-winger, are interesting too.

    It's one reason why I think the EU is a necessary thing in the long run - a single country will always struggle to get a grip on multinationals, a whole developed continent has a much better chance...if they want to. But it does mean squashing the tendency of individual countries to rip off the community by a race to the bottom on corporate taxation. Britain hunts with the hounds and runs with the fox on this - yes, we worry about lost revenue, but the City is Tax Avoidance Central.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,172
    edited January 10
    CD13 said:

    I've done a risk/benefit analysis on a re-run of the referendum. It depends on the result which complicates matters, so …

    (1) A big majority for Remain. Advantages ... it clears things up and we carry on with normal politics. The Remainers can gloat. Risks … residual bitterness, and being a laughing stock in Europe. But this applies to (2) as well. However this result is also very unlikely.

    (2) A narrow Remain win. More likely, but it solves nothing and exacerbates divisions. Why not a re-run of the re-run next year? the sore continues with added irritation.

    (3) A narrow Leave win. It solves nothing, but even having had a re-run sullies our reputation. Parliament won't change its mind. It may lie about this, but it won't.

    A revocation, or delay by Parliament is the other option (it amounts to the same thing). All the risks of the above with knobs on.

    We must leave. And given where we are today, 10th January, May's deal is the most sensible way of doing that. It says absolutely nothing about any kind of future relationship apart from various woolly intentions so is not committing to anything. The EU wants a future relationship/trade agreement asap and so do we.

    The only problem is that it is quite obvious that that future trade agreement will take longer than the two years of the WA and hence it looks like we will be in a customs union thereafter (and of course the backstop would kick in). And that takes us into GE territory and then all bets are off (on).

    If the Cons leavers were sensible and competent (ha haha hahahahahahahaha) they would get this deal through asap (can they without the DUP?) and get cracking on the future trade deal, and I'm sure one of the early side agreements would deal with the backstop.

    But of course they aren't so they won't.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177
    SeanT said:

    Thought: ‪People advocating No Deal (including me when drunk) remind me of the boffins who exploded the 1st atom bomb.

    They knew it would be powerful, do some damage, but also end the war: a good thing. But they also thought there was a 10% risk it would ignite the atmosphere, killing the entire world‬.

    Hm.

    On the plus side, we would see a host of Europhiles embedded in molten trinitite.

    Which would save the cost of running the Brexit Tribunals.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,648

    TGOHF said:

    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    A second referendum is not an outcome, it is a process: a means to an end. The outcomes you should be quoting probabilities on are;
    - May's Deal
    - Remain
    - No Deal
    - Some other deal (specify)

    If a second vote is 40%, then what we should be doing is splitting that down to, say Remain 20%, No Deal 15%, May's Deal 5%, and adding those to the outcomes arrived at through parliament. (Of course, it's hard to model the odds there without knowing the options that would be put, and the mechanics of the question/s they'd be put by).
    OK here goes:

    40%

    ->

    Remain: 25%
    Deal: 12.5%
    No Deal: 2% (It's low mainly because I think the changes of it being on the ballot paper are low)
    Black swan / blessed merciful meteor of death: 0.5%
    Second referendum would go one of 2 ways in my opinion

    if same question as last time = same result

    if rigged question e.g. deal vs remain, then a massive fall in turnout to say 30-40% probably backed by overt calls to boycott the referendum by Farage etc and a clean win for Remain. Remain would claim victory and 20+ years of further bitterness ensue as the EU rub our noses in it financially.

    And all the social and political consequences of legitimising extremists and destroying public faith in democratic systems in this country.
    Unfortunately those same outcomes are likely if we proceed to inflict tremendous damage on the country based on a one-off narrowly won vote that had no proposition, spelled out few of the consequences, and ended up worsening rather than resolving many of the grievances that drove the vote in the first place.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    The alternatives are not mutually exclusive so the odds should add to more than 100%.

    2nd vote can also result in May's deal or No deal.

    I suggest

    2nd vote 10%
    May deal 50%
    No deal 50%
    Revocation 5%

  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 347

    How to deal with parasite taxation? Use taxes that are hard to parasite.

    * VAT. On everything. Make it simple, scrap the exemptions and zero-rates
    * Lots more tax on all the negative externalities, especially fuel
    * Steeper income tax curve to make up for any regressive effects of the above
    * Get rid of all the silly tax breaks like CGT relief on your first home
    * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

    To be fair, a good place to start would just be to start making the tax system simpler. And I'd start with Income tax (and tax on income).

    Scrap national insurance entirely. Raise income tax to 32% at the basic rate, 42% at the higher rate. Maybe 50% at the additional rate.
    Introduce a 'retired' personal allowance of say £5,000 (which we used to have) so that poorer pensioners don't lose out by going from 20% and no NI to 32%. If you get a pension of £100k a year, then tough, you're going to be worse off.... but I'm sure you'll struggle by.

    Getting rid of NI also means no Employers NI, but I'm sure something could be done to claw it back. Raising Corporation Tax would probably be the best bet. I would NOT introduce a new tax on employers just to cover the loss in the 13.8%. If you're going to reform the system, damn well do it.

    Of course, it won't happen. Not because it couldn't be done, but because you could scrap an entire department of HMRC that deals with National Insurance, and the government would be too scared to tell so many hundreds of people they are sacked.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177

    SeanT said:

    Thought: ‪People advocating No Deal (including me when drunk) remind me of the boffins who exploded the 1st atom bomb.

    They knew it would be powerful, do some damage, but also end the war: a good thing. But they also thought there was a 10% risk it would ignite the atmosphere, killing the entire world‬.

    Hm.

    No. The boffins did not think there was a 10% chance the atom bomb would kill the whole world.
    It did make Oppenheimer think boffins had become the destroyers of worlds.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,618

    On topic, we need a turnover tax. Tax businesses on their topline on all activity (above a threshold) within a tax territory. For the purposes of online transactions, the physical location should be regarded as the location of the place where:
    1. the service is to be performed;
    2. the good is to be delivered

    So if I am ordering a sweatshirt from a Thai manufacturer, via an Irish-registered company on a US-based server, while I'm on holiday in Spain (I'm not, just in case you're wondering), the supplying company still pays the tax to the UK exchequer because the sweatshirt will be delivered to an address near Wakefield.

    Isn't the problem with a turnover tax that it penalises those companies with very low profit margins on very high turnover (and in many cases would make them unsustainable) whilst allowing low turnover companies with very high profit margins to get away with paying very little tax?
    Low turnover companies will pay very little tax anyway, and some of the loophole will likely be recouped through income tax.

    As for high-income / low-profit companies, yes, they would have to increase prices but that would be an industry-wide thing they'd face so it's likely that they wouldn't suffer any material disadvantage (some, operating in the luxury / leisure / discretionary areas might find the size of their industry's cake shrinking but I don't think the overall effect would be big, when set against alternative means of raising the same revenue).
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,460
    IanB2 said:

    Lol. in reality if there is a clean rejection of Brexit (a big if, for sure), public appetite ever to go through the whole thing again will be close to zero. Just as Brexit has already killed off proto-exit stirrings in the rest of the EU.

    That is just delusional. All of the factors that drove Brexit will still be there and will have been magnified both by the rejection of a democratic vote by those in power and by the EU accelerating its agenda. A negation of Brexit will be the absolute high point of EU acceptance in this country and things will go downhill very, very fast from there for Europhiles.

    The damage you are doing to the political and democratic systems in this country are vast and quite possibly irreversible. You will have succeeded in making us more like some European countries by introducing continual political turmoil.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 29,195

    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    I'd go for TMay's Deal at 40% with the fairly large proviso that it may no longer be recognisable as TMay's Deal.

    It will very probably have a permanent customs union bolted onto it, and maybe even more. The only pathway I can see for her is Labour support - whether endorsed by the front bench or not - and they will extract their pound of flesh.

    35% #peoplesvote, 5% revocation, otherwise as you say.
    I think a second referendum is too high and I can’t see how that would be forced on the Government. I think May would only choose it if public support for the deal was far higher than in Parliament.

    I agree with the rest of what you say. She’s trying to cleave off 50 or so Tory ERGers and another 50 or so pragmatic Labour Leavers to get over the line, and that then has to hold for all the subsequent votes to put it into law.

    Very difficult, but it’s the obvious play.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 29,195
    TOPPING said:

    CD13 said:

    I've done a risk/benefit analysis on a re-run of the referendum. It depends on the result which complicates matters, so …

    (1) A big majority for Remain. Advantages ... it clears things up and we carry on with normal politics. The Remainers can gloat. Risks … residual bitterness, and being a laughing stock in Europe. But this applies to (2) as well. However this result is also very unlikely.

    (2) A narrow Remain win. More likely, but it solves nothing and exacerbates divisions. Why not a re-run of the re-run next year? the sore continues with added irritation.

    (3) A narrow Leave win. It solves nothing, but even having had a re-run sullies our reputation. Parliament won't change its mind. It may lie about this, but it won't.

    A revocation, or delay by Parliament is the other option (it amounts to the same thing). All the risks of the above with knobs on.

    We must leave. And given where we are today, 10th January, May's deal is the most sensible way of doing that. It says absolutely nothing about any kind of future relationship apart from various woolly intentions so is not committing to anything. The EU wants a future relationship/trade agreement asap and so do we.

    The only problem is that it is quite obvious that that future trade agreement will take longer than the two years of the WA and hence it looks like we will be in a customs union thereafter (and of course the backstop would kick in). And that takes us into GE territory and then all bets are off (on).

    If the Cons leavers were sensible and competent (ha haha hahahahahahahaha) they would get this deal through asap (can they without the DUP?) and get cracking on the future trade deal, and I'm sure one of the early side agreements would deal with the backstop.

    But of course they aren't so they won't.
    Hard to disagree with that.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 14,827

    SeanT said:

    Thought: ‪People advocating No Deal (including me when drunk) remind me of the boffins who exploded the 1st atom bomb.

    They knew it would be powerful, do some damage, but also end the war: a good thing. But they also thought there was a 10% risk it would ignite the atmosphere, killing the entire world‬.

    Hm.

    No. The boffins did not think there was a 10% chance the atom bomb would kill the whole world.
    I think they thought it was 'almost' impossible; what percentage chance that comes under I don't know.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177

    CES 2019: 'Award-winning' sex toy for women withdrawn from show

    "We firmly believe that women, non-binary, gender non-conforming, and LGBTQI folks should be vocally claiming our space in pleasure and tech," she said.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46809807

    The required gender descriptors are now getting as long as those legal warnings you see on US tv for anything medical.

    Except there's no place for men in pleasure and tech.

    Oh well, we still have the old hand-operated model......
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,460

    How to deal with parasite taxation? Use taxes that are hard to parasite.

    * VAT. On everything. Make it simple, scrap the exemptions and zero-rates
    * Lots more tax on all the negative externalities, especially fuel
    * Steeper income tax curve to make up for any regressive effects of the above
    * Get rid of all the silly tax breaks like CGT relief on your first home
    * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

    You’re not a politician, are you?

    You’ve be dragged from your chair within days if you tried to do that.
    And rightly so. The practical, let alone political consequences of those ideas would be horrific. Edmund must really hate the poorest in society to want to add 20% to their basic bills overnight.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,207

    How to deal with parasite taxation? Use taxes that are hard to parasite.

    * VAT. On everything. Make it simple, scrap the exemptions and zero-rates
    * Lots more tax on all the negative externalities, especially fuel
    * Steeper income tax curve to make up for any regressive effects of the above
    * Get rid of all the silly tax breaks like CGT relief on your first home
    * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

    You’re not a politician, are you?

    You’ve be dragged from your chair within days if you tried to do that.
    Correct on both points.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 29,195
    IanB2 said:

    TGOHF said:

    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    A second referendum is not an outcome, it is a process: a means to an end. The outcomes you should be quoting probabilities on are;
    - May's Deal
    - Remain
    - No Deal
    - Some other deal (specify)

    If a second vote is 40%, then what we should be doing is splitting that down to, say Remain 20%, No Deal 15%, May's Deal 5%, and adding those to the outcomes arrived at through parliament. (Of course, it's hard to model the odds there without knowing the options that would be put, and the mechanics of the question/s they'd be put by).
    OK here goes:

    40%

    ->

    Remain: 25%
    Deal: 12.5%
    No Deal: 2% (It's low mainly because I think the changes of it being on the ballot paper are low)
    Black swan / blessed merciful meteor of death: 0.5%
    Second referendum would go one of 2 ways in my opinion

    if same question as last time = same result

    if rigged question e.g. deal vs remain, then a massive fall in turnout to say 30-40% probably backed by overt calls to boycott the referendum by Farage etc and a clean win for Remain. Remain would claim victory and 20+ years of further bitterness ensue as the EU rub our noses in it financially.
    Those with?
    Lol. in reality if there is a clean rejection of Brexit (a big if, for sure), public appetite ever to go through the whole thing again will be close to zero. Just as Brexit has already killed off proto-exit stirrings in the rest of the EU.
    I think that’s as naive as saying all Remainers will reluctantly fall in behind Brexit once it happens.

    The UK has had a contorted and conflicted relationship with Europe for centuries. Our political and cultural histories are very different.

    That will continue.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,648
    SeanT said:

    eek said:

    SeanT said:

    The price the EU will exact for supporting Ireland on the backstop is the harmonization of EU corporate tax. That much is clear. Dublin is in for a shock.

    I suspect that will be offset by being the only English speaking country left in the EU
    Malta is basically English speaking. 88% are fluent. In Holland fully 93% of people claim to speak English. And Sweden can’t be far off.

    Ireland’s advantage, in this case, is minimal and dwindling.
    The language question is an interesting one, given English's wide usage within EU institutions. Each member gets to nominate an official language for EU recognition - because the UK has English, Ireland nominated Gaelic and Malta nominated Maltese. Formally at least Brexit should push one of them to switch.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177
    SeanT said:

    eek said:

    SeanT said:

    The price the EU will exact for supporting Ireland on the backstop is the harmonization of EU corporate tax. That much is clear. Dublin is in for a shock.

    I suspect that will be offset by being the only English speaking country left in the EU
    Malta is basically English speaking. 88% are fluent. In Holland fully 93% of people claim to speak English. And Sweden can’t be far off.

    Ireland’s advantage, in this case, is minimal and dwindling.

    https://www.dutchnews.nl/features/2018/01/english-is-no-longer-a-foreign-language-in-the-netherlands-but-it-has-a-unique-character-here/
    76% of Cypriots speak English too.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,618
    Pulpstar said:

    On topic, we need a turnover tax. Tax businesses on their topline on all activity (above a threshold) within a tax territory. For the purposes of online transactions, the physical location should be regarded as the location of the place where:
    1. the service is to be performed;
    2. the good is to be delivered

    So if I am ordering a sweatshirt from a Thai manufacturer, via an Irish-registered company on a US-based server, while I'm on holiday in Spain (I'm not, just in case you're wondering), the supplying company still pays the tax to the UK exchequer because the sweatshirt will be delivered to an address near Wakefield.

    David, what happens when a parent runs a contract through a wholly owned UK subsidiary on a 1% fee basis and that contract is responsible for say 10* the normal annual turnover of the company but only generates a small % of the total profit for the year ?
    I don't think I understand the scenario. In principle though, the tax regime should not have to fit round the conveniences of internal corporate accounting.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,648

    IanB2 said:

    TGOHF said:

    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    Third. Like all the options that aren't May's Deal or No Deal......

    I think we can safely say that no deal is now behind at least some of those.
    Yes, with Bercow going rogue I think the chances of No Deal have shrunk considerably

    Ignoring the necessity or otherwise of an A50 extension, my odds now are:

    2nd vote: 40%
    TMay’s Deal: 30%
    No Deal: 15%
    Revocation. 10%
    Black Swan/Meteor Strike: 5%

    I’d be intrigued by other PBers’ ranking odds on Brexit outcomes
    A second referendum is not an outcome, it is a process: a means to an end. The outcomes you should be quoting probabilities on are;
    - May's Deal
    - Remain
    - No Deal
    - Some other deal (specify)

    If a second vote is 40%, then what we should be doing is splitting that down to, say Remain 20%, No Deal 15%, May's Deal 5%, and adding those to the outcomes arrived at through parliament. (Of course, it's hard to model the odds there without knowing the options that would be put, and the mechanics of the question/s they'd be put by).
    OK here goes:

    40%

    ->

    Remain: 25%
    Deal: 12.5%
    No Deal: 2% (It's low mainly because I think the changes of it being on the ballot paper are low)
    Black swan / blessed merciful meteor of death: 0.5%
    Second referendum would go one of 2 ways in my opinion

    if same question as last time = same result

    if rigged question e.g. deal vs remain, then a massive fall in turnout to say 30-40% probably backed by overt calls to boycott the referendum by Farage etc and a clean win for Remain. Remain would claim victory and 20+ years of further bitterness ensue as the EU rub our noses in it financially.
    Those with?
    Lol. in reality if there is a clean rejection of Brexit (a big if, for sure), public appetite ever to go through the whole thing again will be close to zero. Just as Brexit has already killed off proto-exit stirrings in the rest of the EU.
    I think that’s as naive as saying all Remainers will reluctantly fall in behind Brexit once it happens.

    The UK has had a contorted and conflicted relationship with Europe for centuries. Our political and cultural histories are very different.

    That will continue.
    Quite possibly. Nevertheless Brexit as a political project will be as tarnished as Labour's trade union policy after the Winter of Discontent or the Tories' Poll Tax. It would be a long time before any major political party will go playing with putting it in its manifesto.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 29,195

    On topic, we need a turnover tax. Tax businesses on their topline on all activity (above a threshold) within a tax territory. For the purposes of online transactions, the physical location should be regarded as the location of the place where:
    1. the service is to be performed;
    2. the good is to be delivered

    So if I am ordering a sweatshirt from a Thai manufacturer, via an Irish-registered company on a US-based server, while I'm on holiday in Spain (I'm not, just in case you're wondering), the supplying company still pays the tax to the UK exchequer because the sweatshirt will be delivered to an address near Wakefield.

    That was where my thinking was going too.

    But it’s clearly far more complicated than that, or we’d have already done it.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 14,061

    How to deal with parasite taxation? Use taxes that are hard to parasite.

    * VAT. On everything. Make it simple, scrap the exemptions and zero-rates
    * Lots more tax on all the negative externalities, especially fuel
    * Steeper income tax curve to make up for any regressive effects of the above
    * Get rid of all the silly tax breaks like CGT relief on your first home
    * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

    None of those are taxes on corporations. If anything you are loading even more taxes on individuals rather than on corporations and exacerbating the sense that taxes are paid only by the little people.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,473

    Pulpstar said:

    On topic, we need a turnover tax. Tax businesses on their topline on all activity (above a threshold) within a tax territory. For the purposes of online transactions, the physical location should be regarded as the location of the place where:
    1. the service is to be performed;
    2. the good is to be delivered

    So if I am ordering a sweatshirt from a Thai manufacturer, via an Irish-registered company on a US-based server, while I'm on holiday in Spain (I'm not, just in case you're wondering), the supplying company still pays the tax to the UK exchequer because the sweatshirt will be delivered to an address near Wakefield.

    David, what happens when a parent runs a contract through a wholly owned UK subsidiary on a 1% fee basis and that contract is responsible for say 10* the normal annual turnover of the company but only generates a small % of the total profit for the year ?
    I don't think I understand the scenario. In principle though, the tax regime should not have to fit round the conveniences of internal corporate accounting.
    Ok - In practice this would mean (In the example I can't explicitly refer to for confidentiality sake) less corporation tax revenue for the UK exchequer and more for the US in this example.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,460
    IanB2 said:


    Unfortunately those same outcomes are likely if we proceed to inflict tremendous damage on the country based on a one-off narrowly won vote that had no proposition, spelled out few of the consequences, and ended up worsening rather than resolving many of the grievances that drove the vote in the first place.

    No they really aren't. In the wake of the vote, the vast majority of people in this country accepted that the referendum was legitimate and should be accepted including most of those who voted Remain. They may not have particularly liked it but they were willing to accept the result.

    The consequences of MPs deciding to ignore that result because they didn't agree with it, either by asking us to vote again or by simply revoking would be catastrophic. As was pointed out earlier in the thread it would show that MPs regarded themselves as our masters not our servants. The 'we know better than you' meme is putting the final nail in the coffin of Parliamentary Democracy. That is your legacy if Brexit is prevented.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,618
    IanB2 said:

    SeanT said:

    eek said:

    SeanT said:

    The price the EU will exact for supporting Ireland on the backstop is the harmonization of EU corporate tax. That much is clear. Dublin is in for a shock.

    I suspect that will be offset by being the only English speaking country left in the EU
    Malta is basically English speaking. 88% are fluent. In Holland fully 93% of people claim to speak English. And Sweden can’t be far off.

    Ireland’s advantage, in this case, is minimal and dwindling.
    The language question is an interesting one, given English's wide usage within EU institutions. Each member gets to nominate an official language for EU recognition - because the UK has English, Ireland nominated Gaelic and Malta nominated Maltese. Formally at least Brexit should push one of them to switch.
    If they don't switch, it gives the EU the option to adopt English as a neutral common working language (which would only reflect the reality anyway). That would enable countries to continue to work in it without having to notionally give one member a notional advantage.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,207

    How to deal with parasite taxation? Use taxes that are hard to parasite.

    * VAT. On everything. Make it simple, scrap the exemptions and zero-rates
    * Lots more tax on all the negative externalities, especially fuel
    * Steeper income tax curve to make up for any regressive effects of the above
    * Get rid of all the silly tax breaks like CGT relief on your first home
    * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

    You’re not a politician, are you?

    You’ve be dragged from your chair within days if you tried to do that.
    And rightly so. The practical, let alone political consequences of those ideas would be horrific. Edmund must really hate the poorest in society to want to add 20% to their basic bills overnight.
    Read the third one. (Also add tax credits etc for the same purpose.)

    It's true that as a proportion of income poor people spend more on zero-rated stuff than rich people, but they don't spend nearly as much stuff per head in absolute terms, and most people aren't poor, so you collect many times more revenue than the amount the poor are paying and you can give them that and then some with more targetted methods.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 310
    Ok, a mention of Estonia was bound to trigger me. Estonia shouldn't be on the list. Corporate taxation is zero only on undistributed profits, if any dividend payout the it is taxed as income, at 20%. It is a method to promote the growth of Estonian companies, not a method for foreigners to incorporate and avoid tax. In fact even for Estonian E-residents who set up Estonian companies from overseas, the reporting is actually relatively onerous.

    Nor does Estonia stint on defence, it has always complied with the NATO 2% of GDP spend, and sometimes by a big margin, but the pressure from Russia is strong, and Estonia has drones, not an airforce, hence the NATO air policing squadron.

    More to the actual point. Estonia does not generally run a deficit, so it has rock solid public finances, the government is run efficiently and has net public assets, rather than a national debt. This explains why Estonia has a AA- credit rating, stable outlook (UK is AA, negative outlook). The country has professionals, not bullshitters, in Parliament. The civil service can deliver ferry charters themselves, without lining the pockets of dubious Tory-connected start-ups. Leadership and management is not just a load of box ticking diversity training horsesh*t. Take back control? I think we are now seeing just how dreadful the quality of UK management in the public and private sectors has got over the past few years. In my lifetime the UK has gone from being the second largest economy in the world to being on the verge of leaving the top ten. That is NOT inevitable decline- it is crappy high schools, the class system, a tolerance of bad behaviour, you name it.

    Right now I'm transiting Manchester Airport. Its a toilet. Dingy, dirty, cramped, badly designed, surly staff, everything done as "that'll do". might as well be a metaphor for the whole of the UK and it makes me very very angry. Pull your bloody socks up UK! As for tax avoidance, the sleazy cabal of Tory estate agents will not look kindly on taxing the murderers and other criminals from around the world who have bought flats in London... A Land Value tax should be the start of a comprehensive reform of the Uk tax code- its the longest in the world at 27,000 pages and it mostly designed to hide the fact that the rich pay massively less than the poor. In fact it is London that is the centre of global money laundering so take the beam out of your own eye before you mention the motes elsewhere.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 8,802

    On topic, we need a turnover tax. Tax businesses on their topline on all activity (above a threshold) within a tax territory. For the purposes of online transactions, the physical location should be regarded as the location of the place where:
    1. the service is to be performed;
    2. the good is to be delivered

    So if I am ordering a sweatshirt from a Thai manufacturer, via an Irish-registered company on a US-based server, while I'm on holiday in Spain (I'm not, just in case you're wondering), the supplying company still pays the tax to the UK exchequer because the sweatshirt will be delivered to an address near Wakefield.

    That was where my thinking was going too.

    But it’s clearly far more complicated than that, or we’d have already done it.
    Turnover taxes can be hugely distorting to prices and thus reduce consumer surplus considerably. For all Amazon's taxation faults, they've greatly enriched their British consumers, and that should matter too.

    The point of a company is not to make sales but to make profit, so ideally we should tax that - the [substantial] challenge being to identify the true level of profit, as opposed to the current accounting fictions.

    There aren't any easy answers here, both as you say and the excellent OP implies.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,618
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On topic, we need a turnover tax. Tax businesses on their topline on all activity (above a threshold) within a tax territory. For the purposes of online transactions, the physical location should be regarded as the location of the place where:
    1. the service is to be performed;
    2. the good is to be delivered

    So if I am ordering a sweatshirt from a Thai manufacturer, via an Irish-registered company on a US-based server, while I'm on holiday in Spain (I'm not, just in case you're wondering), the supplying company still pays the tax to the UK exchequer because the sweatshirt will be delivered to an address near Wakefield.

    David, what happens when a parent runs a contract through a wholly owned UK subsidiary on a 1% fee basis and that contract is responsible for say 10* the normal annual turnover of the company but only generates a small % of the total profit for the year ?
    I don't think I understand the scenario. In principle though, the tax regime should not have to fit round the conveniences of internal corporate accounting.
    Ok - In practice this would mean (In the example I can't explicitly refer to for confidentiality sake) less corporation tax revenue for the UK exchequer and more for the US in this example.
    In principle, I'd say that if there was an order placed with a UK subsidiary and that work was being delivered in the UK, then there would be a turnover liability in the UK. That might reduce a profit-tax liability but then restructuring / reducing Corporation Tax would need to be a part of the reform of introducing a Turnover Tax.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,610
    SeanT said:

    Thought: ‪People advocating No Deal (including me when drunk) remind me of the boffins who exploded the 1st atom bomb.

    They knew it would be powerful, do some damage, but also end the war: a good thing. But they also thought there was a 10% risk it would ignite the atmosphere, killing the entire world‬.

    Hm.

    Of course exploding the atom bomb shortened the war and led to a massive boost to the global and US economies and dragged Japan into the 20th century.

    Like a clean Brexit would.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 7,440

    How to deal with parasite taxation? Use taxes that are hard to parasite.

    * VAT. On everything. Make it simple, scrap the exemptions and zero-rates
    * Lots more tax on all the negative externalities, especially fuel
    * Steeper income tax curve to make up for any regressive effects of the above
    * Get rid of all the silly tax breaks like CGT relief on your first home
    * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

    You’re not a politician, are you?

    You’ve be dragged from your chair within days if you tried to do that.
    And rightly so. The practical, let alone political consequences of those ideas would be horrific. Edmund must really hate the poorest in society to want to add 20% to their basic bills overnight.
    Read the third one. (Also add tax credits etc for the same purpose.)

    It's true that as a proportion of income poor people spend more on zero-rated stuff than rich people, but they don't spend nearly as much stuff per head in absolute terms, and most people aren't poor, so you collect many times more revenue than the amount the poor are paying and you can give them that and then some with more targetted methods.
    You want people to spend their money. Making it more expensive to buy stuff means lower economic activity...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 29,195

    How to deal with parasite taxation? Use taxes that are hard to parasite.

    * VAT. On everything. Make it simple, scrap the exemptions and zero-rates
    * Lots more tax on all the negative externalities, especially fuel
    * Steeper income tax curve to make up for any regressive effects of the above
    * Get rid of all the silly tax breaks like CGT relief on your first home
    * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

    You’re not a politician, are you?

    You’ve be dragged from your chair within days if you tried to do that.
    And rightly so. The practical, let alone political consequences of those ideas would be horrific. Edmund must really hate the poorest in society to want to add 20% to their basic bills overnight.
    Almost all of it would totally screw over the little guy. It’s classical “radical centrist” Davos style globalist stuff that myopic numbers driven economists obsess over but would also let the big corporations off the hook.

    He’d make Macron look like Watt Tyler.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,610
    IanB2 said:

    SeanT said:

    eek said:

    SeanT said:

    The price the EU will exact for supporting Ireland on the backstop is the harmonization of EU corporate tax. That much is clear. Dublin is in for a shock.

    I suspect that will be offset by being the only English speaking country left in the EU
    Malta is basically English speaking. 88% are fluent. In Holland fully 93% of people claim to speak English. And Sweden can’t be far off.

    Ireland’s advantage, in this case, is minimal and dwindling.
    The language question is an interesting one, given English's wide usage within EU institutions. Each member gets to nominate an official language for EU recognition - because the UK has English, Ireland nominated Gaelic and Malta nominated Maltese. Formally at least Brexit should push one of them to switch.
    Perhaps there would be no need for the EU to use English at all - force the Irish to learn German - there may be a few left over in Dublin from 39-45 who have some of the basic language.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,207
    Cyclefree said:

    How to deal with parasite taxation? Use taxes that are hard to parasite.

    * VAT. On everything. Make it simple, scrap the exemptions and zero-rates
    * Lots more tax on all the negative externalities, especially fuel
    * Steeper income tax curve to make up for any regressive effects of the above
    * Get rid of all the silly tax breaks like CGT relief on your first home
    * LAND VALUE TAX! HURRAY!

    None of those are taxes on corporations. If anything you are loading even more taxes on individuals rather than on corporations and exacerbating the sense that taxes are paid only by the little people.
    I know corporations are people but are they the big people? Or are only big corporations the big people, and little corporations are also the little people?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,758

    On topic, we need a turnover tax. Tax businesses on their topline on all activity (above a threshold) within a tax territory. For the purposes of online transactions, the physical location should be regarded as the location of the place where:
    1. the service is to be performed;
    2. the good is to be delivered

    So if I am ordering a sweatshirt from a Thai manufacturer, via an Irish-registered company on a US-based server, while I'm on holiday in Spain (I'm not, just in case you're wondering), the supplying company still pays the tax to the UK exchequer because the sweatshirt will be delivered to an address near Wakefield.

    Isn't the problem with a turnover tax that it penalises those companies with very low profit margins on very high turnover (and in many cases would make them unsustainable) whilst allowing low turnover companies with very high profit margins to get away with paying very little tax?
    Low turnover companies will pay very little tax anyway, and some of the loophole will likely be recouped through income tax.

    As for high-income / low-profit companies, yes, they would have to increase prices but that would be an industry-wide thing they'd face so it's likely that they wouldn't suffer any material disadvantage (some, operating in the luxury / leisure / discretionary areas might find the size of their industry's cake shrinking but I don't think the overall effect would be big, when set against alternative means of raising the same revenue).
    So you want Goldman Sachs to pay hardly any tax and Sainsbury's to pay a vast amount?
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234


    He really hasn't. What happens when no can-kicking option achieves a concensus?

    Tuesday: meaningful vote fails.
    Monday: vote on amendment to May's plan B for 2nd ref fails
    Monday: vote on amendment to May's plan B for exiting with no deal fails
    Monday: vote on amendment to May's plan B for pivoting to Norway+ fails
    Monday: vote on amendment to May's plan B for revoking A50 fails
    Monday: vote on amendment to May's plan B for extending A50 fails
    Monday: vote on amendment to May's plan B for a new election fails
    Monday: vote on May's plan B fails.
    Tuesday: vote of no confidence fails.

    We will, however, have made some kind of progress, because we'll be able to see the numbers on all the different possible Plan Bs, and for the first time Parliamentarians will have a clear idea of what sort of ways out of this mess are most likely to be able to command a majority in the House.

    Possible plan C or D will stand a chance of finally commanding a majority in the house.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,648

    IanB2 said:

    SeanT said:

    eek said:

    SeanT said:

    The price the EU will exact for supporting Ireland on the backstop is the harmonization of EU corporate tax. That much is clear. Dublin is in for a shock.

    I suspect that will be offset by being the only English speaking country left in the EU
    Malta is basically English speaking. 88% are fluent. In Holland fully 93% of people claim to speak English. And Sweden can’t be far off.

    Ireland’s advantage, in this case, is minimal and dwindling.
    The language question is an interesting one, given English's wide usage within EU institutions. Each member gets to nominate an official language for EU recognition - because the UK has English, Ireland nominated Gaelic and Malta nominated Maltese. Formally at least Brexit should push one of them to switch.
    If they don't switch, it gives the EU the option to adopt English as a neutral common working language (which would only reflect the reality anyway). That would enable countries to continue to work in it without having to notionally give one member a notional advantage.
    Certainly that would be a pragmatic solution. More so than Esperanto, anyhow.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,618

    SeanT said:

    Thought: ‪People advocating No Deal (including me when drunk) remind me of the boffins who exploded the 1st atom bomb.

    They knew it would be powerful, do some damage, but also end the war: a good thing. But they also thought there was a 10% risk it would ignite the atmosphere, killing the entire world‬.

    Hm.

    No. The boffins did not think there was a 10% chance the atom bomb would kill the whole world.
    I think they thought it was 'almost' impossible; what percentage chance that comes under I don't know.
    No, they didn't. 'Igniting the atmosphere' is not physically / chemically possible (if it was, then volcanoes or meteor strikes would have already done it).

    The comment was a metaphor for the atom bomb unleashing a force which might not be *politically* controllable and which might have the power to destroy the world.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,648

    IanB2 said:


    Unfortunately those same outcomes are likely if we proceed to inflict tremendous damage on the country based on a one-off narrowly won vote that had no proposition, spelled out few of the consequences, and ended up worsening rather than resolving many of the grievances that drove the vote in the first place.

    No they really aren't. In the wake of the vote, the vast majority of people in this country accepted that the referendum was legitimate and should be accepted including most of those who voted Remain. They may not have particularly liked it but they were willing to accept the result.

    The consequences of MPs deciding to ignore that result because they didn't agree with it, either by asking us to vote again or by simply revoking would be catastrophic. As was pointed out earlier in the thread it would show that MPs regarded themselves as our masters not our servants. The 'we know better than you' meme is putting the final nail in the coffin of Parliamentary Democracy. That is your legacy if Brexit is prevented.
    I don't think we are in a position to make such bold assumptions, until we have better idea of the real impact, assuming it ever happens.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,473

    On topic, we need a turnover tax. Tax businesses on their topline on all activity (above a threshold) within a tax territory. For the purposes of online transactions, the physical location should be regarded as the location of the place where:
    1. the service is to be performed;
    2. the good is to be delivered

    So if I am ordering a sweatshirt from a Thai manufacturer, via an Irish-registered company on a US-based server, while I'm on holiday in Spain (I'm not, just in case you're wondering), the supplying company still pays the tax to the UK exchequer because the sweatshirt will be delivered to an address near Wakefield.

    Isn't the problem with a turnover tax that it penalises those companies with very low profit margins on very high turnover (and in many cases would make them unsustainable) whilst allowing low turnover companies with very high profit margins to get away with paying very little tax?
    Low turnover companies will pay very little tax anyway, and some of the loophole will likely be recouped through income tax.

    As for high-income / low-profit companies, yes, they would have to increase prices but that would be an industry-wide thing they'd face so it's likely that they wouldn't suffer any material disadvantage (some, operating in the luxury / leisure / discretionary areas might find the size of their industry's cake shrinking but I don't think the overall effect would be big, when set against alternative means of raising the same revenue).
    So you want Goldman Sachs to pay hardly any tax and Sainsbury's to pay a vast amount?
    Hah, good spot - yes I noted that my example of running stuff through a UK Co for a fee might look like creative corporate accounting (It isn't) but it's on the 'nice bit of extra revenue for the UK exchequer' side of things - whereas supermarkets really can't get out of high turnover low profits situations and a topline tax would instantly raise food prices by whatever the tax % was..
This discussion has been closed.