The UK General Politics Thread Page 62

  • Page

    of 190 First / Last

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 12:54:38 43,795 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    b_t_z_n:

    Say a company is globally headed in the US. It has a UK branch. It makes money from sales in the UK branch. It pays tax on that money. It then repatriates the money to the US (where the shareholders who want the money are). This is an income stream which also attracts tax in the US. Is it fair to pay tax twice?

    Next: say you buy something from a company in a foreign country and it is delivered to you in the UK. Should the company pay tax on this in the UK? It is already paying this in the foreign country. This is the situation you have with Amazon. However it is true they are delivering ahead of (and in anticipation of) the actual orders so you get your product more quickly. Does this make the difference? If so they could just wait until you've made your order - the only difference then is that it takes longer to receive your product. How does that help anyone?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 12:57:08 43,795 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    1 Supep-rich guy is going to act very differently to 50 tourists. The 50 tourists are going to haemorrhage money while they're here, because they're on holiday. Woo! Yolo! etc.

    1 super-rich guy is just going to stand in a large drawing room in front a portrait of himself on the wall. Rain rattles against the windows as he surveys all that is his. Thunder stikes, illuminating his crumpled, aged frame as he cackles to himself.

    Now how is that going to help the economy?
    Super rich guy has more money to spend than your average tourist.

    Also, OK say he does nothing but stand in his drawing room. He's still paying UK rent to stand there, is it better he stands in a large drawing room in another country instead? Why?

    The problem is that everyone compares what the super rich pay with what they could pay, without realising that what they could pay is most likely zero.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 12:58:21 43,795 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Why not call the rich guy a 'year round tourist'? Why is that different to normal tourism? Why is a person who stays here for five days intrisically different to a person who stays here for five years?
    Because they leave sooner. People enjoying themselves for a week isn't as obnoxious as someone doing it for 5 years.
    260 people enjoying themselves for a week apiece is exactly as obnoxious as one person enjoying it for 5 years.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 3 Dec 2012 12:58:49 6,654 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    snip
    thanks
  • disusedgenius 3 Dec 2012 13:03:52 5,278 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    260 people enjoying themselves for a week apiece is exactly as obnoxious as one person enjoying it for 5 years.
    ...so you're claiming that that one person is 260 times more obnoxious than a standard tourist? Seems extreme, but ok!
  • kalel 3 Dec 2012 13:06:53 86,947 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    260 people enjoying themselves for a week apiece is exactly as obnoxious as one person enjoying it for 5 years.
    ...so you're claiming that that one person is 260 times more obnoxious than a standard tourist? Seems extreme, but ok!
    It's totally different behaviours. It's not about being obnoxious and it's not even specifically about spending money. It's about where any how they spend money. Tourist attractions bring in lots of money and provide lots of jobs. Tourists feed the economy in a very different way to the rich.
  • Chopsen 3 Dec 2012 13:07:19 15,855 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Also, OK say he does nothing but stand in his drawing room. He's still paying UK rent to stand there, is it better he stands in a large drawing room in another country instead? Why?

    The problem is that everyone compares what the super rich pay with what they could pay, without realising that what they could pay is most likely zero.
    There is a lot of research that the differential between rich and poor is associated with all kinds of Bad Things [citation needed]. Does the loss of tax revenue matter in the face of the nuanced effect of more equal wealth distribution? Is it actually better to have rich people around? They just raise the prices of commodities like land, and consumer goods. A trickle of taxation does help that. And unless they're actively investing their money, having a pile of wealth stockpiled drives up inflation due to reduced supply of money.

    Edited by Chopsen at 13:07:34 03-12-2012
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 13:07:59 43,795 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    260 people enjoying themselves for a week apiece is exactly as obnoxious as one person enjoying it for 5 years.
    ...so you're claiming that that one person is 260 times more obnoxious than a standard tourist? Seems extreme, but ok!
    What? No, that's exactly what you said. I was exposing how ridiculous that assertion is.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • RobTheBuilder 3 Dec 2012 13:08:20 6,521 posts
    Seen 9 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Also fellow gamers. If we want to clamp down on dodgy tax avoidance we should remember it should make us pay more for games because play/amazon/etc have to pay proper tax on their channel island operations.
  • Moot_Point 3 Dec 2012 13:12:13 3,982 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    b_t_z_n:

    Say a company is globally headed in the US. It has a UK branch. It makes money from sales in the UK branch. It pays tax on that money. It then repatriates the money to the US (where the shareholders who want the money are). This is an income stream which also attracts tax in the US. Is it fair to pay tax twice?
    What? lol

    So you advocate that any company which is set up in one country, but trades in second country, should be exempt from tax in the second country?

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 13:12:32 43,795 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Also, OK say he does nothing but stand in his drawing room. He's still paying UK rent to stand there, is it better he stands in a large drawing room in another country instead? Why?

    The problem is that everyone compares what the super rich pay with what they could pay, without realising that what they could pay is most likely zero.
    There is a lot of research that the differential between rich and poor is associated with all kinds of Bad Things [citation needed]. Does the loss of tax revenue matter in the face of the nuanced effect of more equal wealth distribution? Is it actually better to have rich people around? They just raise the prices of commodities like land, and consumer goods. A trickle of taxation does help that. And unless they're actively investing their money, having a pile of wealth stockpiled drives up inflation due to reduced supply of money.
    Yeah, I agree with some of this. I would note the following though:

    Rich people buying thingsd does indeed drive prices up because they are a scare resource, but the flip side is that consumer spending is increased by the very nature of this activity. If consumer spending rises 0.5% in a quarter this is A Good Thing, whether it is due to the country as a whole or a handful of individuals in Rolls Royces. Yes I'd prefer it was countrywide, but I'd prefer the Good Thing to happen at all.

    And there's no reason you can't stockpile GBP whilst not living in the UK. We've far more to fear from countries hedging their FX exposure than from individuals living in the UK.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 13:12:57 43,795 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Moot_Point wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    b_t_z_n:

    Say a company is globally headed in the US. It has a UK branch. It makes money from sales in the UK branch. It pays tax on that money. It then repatriates the money to the US (where the shareholders who want the money are). This is an income stream which also attracts tax in the US. Is it fair to pay tax twice?
    What? lol

    So you advocate that any company which is set up in one country, but trades in second country, should be exempt from tax in the second country?
    I'm in some pretty good company, too.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MetalDog 3 Dec 2012 13:15:41 23,697 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Wouldn't that just drain money out of some countries and make the distribution of wealth even more criminally unbalanced than it already is?

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • Moot_Point 3 Dec 2012 13:19:21 3,982 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    Wouldn't that just drain money out of some countries and make the distribution of wealth even more criminally unbalanced than it already is?
    Nah, its the future your overlords have planned for you. Economic inequality to the extreme.

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 13:19:23 43,795 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    Wouldn't that just drain money out of some countries and make the distribution of wealth even more criminally unbalanced than it already is?
    What happens is that many countries have tax arrangements with each other which limit tax to only one jurisdiction (typically the subsidiary rather than the parent, where the operations occur). The idea is that this promotes multinational expansion and doesn't disadvantage any one country because the expansion is two way (so EU: US, there are as many EU businesses opening in the US as vice versa, so it balances out).

    EU is in aggregate here, rather than a single agreement, just to put two areas of equivalent size against each other for the sake of demonstrating the point.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 13:22:32 43,795 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Moot_Point wrote:
    MetalDog wrote:
    Wouldn't that just drain money out of some countries and make the distribution of wealth even more criminally unbalanced than it already is?
    Nah, its the future your overlords have planned for you. Economic inequality to the extreme.
    You know that bit in Layer Cake where Daniel Craig is negotiating with the Duke, and he doesn't understand that his million pills with a street value of 5 a pop aren't going to net him 5m? You're like that, to be frank. Actually, you're more like Sasha, coked up and fidget-squawking over Duke's shoulder: 'FIVE ... POUND ... EACH yeah'.

    I think I speak for the forum when I say 'Sasha shut the fuck up!'

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MetalDog 3 Dec 2012 13:24:45 23,697 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Yeah, but what would happen with first world countries selling to third world countries? There's already one heck of an imbalance there, I can't see making selling stuff to them tax free as an improvement.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 13:26:08 43,795 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    Yeah, but what would happen with first world countries selling to third world countries? There's already one heck of an imbalance there, I can't see making selling stuff to them tax free as an improvement.
    This has nothing to do with what is being discussed here and is a far wider problem.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Inertia 3 Dec 2012 13:26:42 677 posts
    Seen 3 weeks ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @LeoliansBro

    And to see if you understand the argument in a rational way. What are some of the disadvantages of doing this? And some ways this could be used to advantage the bigger corporations in an anti-competitive manner.
  • Moot_Point 3 Dec 2012 13:33:02 3,982 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Moot_Point wrote:
    MetalDog wrote:
    Wouldn't that just drain money out of some countries and make the distribution of wealth even more criminally unbalanced than it already is?
    Nah, its the future your overlords have planned for you. Economic inequality to the extreme.
    You know that bit in Layer Cake where Daniel Craig is negotiating with the Duke, and he doesn't understand that his million pills with a street value of 5 a pop aren't going to net him 5m? You're like that, to be frank. Actually, you're more like Sasha, coked up and fidget-squawking over Duke's shoulder: 'FIVE ... POUND ... EACH yeah'.

    I think I speak for the forum when I say 'Sasha shut the fuck up!'
    Ooh, such lovely venom from a true capitalist. What are you doing here, mixing with the chaff of the world? We're all plebs, right?

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 13:35:50 43,795 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The disadvantages to doing what?

    Tax avoidance? Reputational damage, profit risk if you are dependent on Government policy and that policy shifts, the fact that your activities incentivise Governments to do just that, the inability to create and leverage true economies of scale or total market penetration as you avoid jurisdictions that do not work under your 'no tax' business model, difficulty in finding global suppliers that match your eccentric footprint, and the possibility that your business in the long term is not viable.

    Bigger corporations can leverage their size to operate these tax efficient schemes more easily because the cost of tax advice will be proportionally smaller and more affordable than they are if smaller businesses try it. This then allows them to pass the savings on to the consumer which can be argued as anti-competitive (just as bulk buying is anti competitive for the same reason). Also quality control will be much higher (due to both a homogenised model and the importance of eg Starbucks as a customer guaranteeing the best coffee beans go to them). If you don't like it, you should buy the more expensive, inferior coffee from smaller shops.

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 13:39:10 03-12-2012

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 13:37:32 43,795 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Moot_Point wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Moot_Point wrote:
    MetalDog wrote:
    Wouldn't that just drain money out of some countries and make the distribution of wealth even more criminally unbalanced than it already is?
    Nah, its the future your overlords have planned for you. Economic inequality to the extreme.
    You know that bit in Layer Cake where Daniel Craig is negotiating with the Duke, and he doesn't understand that his million pills with a street value of 5 a pop aren't going to net him 5m? You're like that, to be frank. Actually, you're more like Sasha, coked up and fidget-squawking over Duke's shoulder: 'FIVE ... POUND ... EACH yeah'.

    I think I speak for the forum when I say 'Sasha shut the fuck up!'
    Ooh, such lovely venom from a true capitalist. What are you doing here, mixing with the chaff of the world? We're all plebs, right?
    Nope. Please note that 'capitalist' isn't the same as 'elitist'. Nor is 'pleb' the same as 'shouty idiot with a poor grasp of the situation', although clearly here is a solid example.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Psychotext 3 Dec 2012 14:05:53 53,934 posts
    Seen 19 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Also quality control will be much higher (due to both a homogenised model and the importance of eg Starbucks as a customer guaranteeing the best coffee beans go to them). If you don't like it, you should buy the more expensive, inferior coffee from smaller shops.
    I wouldn't use "Starbucks Quality" in the argument. It's been a long, long time since they were considered anywhere near the top of that particular tree.
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 14:07:51 43,795 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Psychotext wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Also quality control will be much higher (due to both a homogenised model and the importance of eg Starbucks as a customer guaranteeing the best coffee beans go to them). If you don't like it, you should buy the more expensive, inferior coffee from smaller shops.
    I wouldn't use "Starbucks Quality" in the argument. It's been a long, long time since they were considered anywhere near the top of that particular tree.
    Heh, fair. How about 'consistency' instead?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 3 Dec 2012 14:08:09 86,947 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Starbucks don't even position themselves as a coffee shop anymore. They're moving into being a general eatery and their compeition is defined as places like Pret and EAT.
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 14:25:35 43,795 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    So, there's something I don't understand from this article. Specifically this quote:


    the Bank of England says that the banks will not be able to fill the capital hole through retaining earnings, or via the profits they generate.

    Why? Is there something I've missed?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 3 Dec 2012 15:05:17 6,654 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    The utopia is that the rich trickle down their wealth by paying for menial goods and services within the population off of which they made their money originally.

    If they can circumvent this then there is a systemic disconnect that needs to be fixed IMO.

    If I were cynical, I would guess that the system is as complex as it is for a reason.

    2 cents from a layman tbh.

    Edited by bitch_tits_zero_nine at 15:07:14 03-12-2012
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 15:12:01 43,795 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    What about rich people who made their money elsewhere and now live in the UK?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • whatfruit 3 Dec 2012 15:12:34 1,424 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    @LeoliansBro because the hole is too big and needs filling now is how I read it.
  • Page

    of 190 First / Last

Log in or register to reply