|
Post by followyoudown on May 23, 2021 8:14:58 GMT
With social care I think what is needed is some sort of impartial commission Which all major parties sign up to abide by As with the last may attempt to start to deal with social care the Labour Party waded in with death tax death tax in a attempt to win votes The Tory party have done similar when labour tried It’s time to make social care non political as none of us know when we may need it I agree although I think there has been commissions before, whatever is decided it will involve those who can afford paying more via taxes, some sort of insurance and / or by the estate paying a fixed lump sum on the death of the person needing care.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on May 23, 2021 8:20:17 GMT
With social care I think what is needed is some sort of impartial commission Which all major parties sign up to abide by As with the last may attempt to start to deal with social care the Labour Party waded in with death tax death tax in a attempt to win votes The Tory party have done similar when labour tried It’s time to make social care non political as none of us know when we may need it I agree although I think there has been commissions before, whatever is decided it will involve those who can afford paying more via taxes, some sort of insurance and / or by the estate paying a fixed lump sum on the death of the person needing care. Yes there would be a increase in taxation but one step forward would be to turn many care homes back into local council control Maintaining a level of care that is affordable available and is not there to make a profit
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 23, 2021 10:11:09 GMT
I agree although I think there has been commissions before, whatever is decided it will involve those who can afford paying more via taxes, some sort of insurance and / or by the estate paying a fixed lump sum on the death of the person needing care. Yes there would be a increase in taxation but one step forward would be to turn many care homes back into local council control Maintaining a level of care that is affordable available and is not there to make a profit The issue is not so much about private or public care provision, but about standards and having suitable monitoring and enforcement processes. Of course, this presupposes a strategic approach exists which, is what I understand the current Government has committed to creating albeit it doesn’t seem to be doing much about it.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 23, 2021 10:39:11 GMT
I agree although I think there has been commissions before, whatever is decided it will involve those who can afford paying more via taxes, some sort of insurance and / or by the estate paying a fixed lump sum on the death of the person needing care. Yes there would be a increase in taxation but one step forward would be to turn many care homes back into local council control Maintaining a level of care that is affordable available and is not there to make a profit Not sure local council control is the way forward if you mean ownership because that would involve the massive cost of buying the buildings / business as well as moving all the staff onto local authority pay and pensions and then you have all the extra equality and diversity officers etc that would be needed. Care homes in some ways may not be the biggest part of the answer perhaps its better to try and keep as many people as possible in their own homes but that in itself would require much more care staff.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on May 24, 2021 20:12:05 GMT
Yes there would be a increase in taxation but one step forward would be to turn many care homes back into local council control Maintaining a level of care that is affordable available and is not there to make a profit Not sure local council control is the way forward if you mean ownership because that would involve the massive cost of buying the buildings / business as well as moving all the staff onto local authority pay and pensions and then you have all the extra equality and diversity officers etc that would be needed. Care homes in some ways may not be the biggest part of the answer perhaps its better to try and keep as many people as possible in their own homes but that in itself would require much more care staff. I think much of our social care problem is cultural. In many other cultures, particularly those of Asian influence, people wouldn't dream of sticking their loved ones in a care home. We often view old people as a hassle rather than an important and respected member of the family.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on May 25, 2021 5:44:17 GMT
Have we got the hang of actually taxing the wealthiest in society yet? What about the huge corporations that continue to squirrel money away and pay under their fair share? When I was running a small company, there was nowhere for me to hide and my taxes were expected in full.
It was seen as a triumph and a redeeming character trait that Denise Coates paid her taxes in full. We're so conditioned to accept billionaires who avoid paying their taxes that when one actually does, it's seen as a result for society.
Start with that and we can begin to look at other incentives.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 25, 2021 8:03:06 GMT
Have we got the hang of actually taxing the wealthiest in society yet? What about the huge corporations that continue to squirrel money away and pay under their fair share? When I was running a small company, there was nowhere for me to hide and my taxes were expected in full. It was seen as a triumph and a redeeming character trait that Denise Coates paid her taxes in full. We're so conditioned to accept billionaires who avoid paying their taxes that when one actually does, it's seen as a result for society. Start with that and we can begin to look at other incentives. It's a myth companies squirrel money away mostly by lazy and stupid journalists who start by quoting sales and tax paid which is a dead giveaway its rubbish as tax is paid on profits. Amazon is usually quoted if you look at their profits and look into the main reason for the reductions in tax are the cost of building those aircraft hangars / investing in tech the cost of which is allowed to be claimed over the first few years rather than over 10 / 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on May 25, 2021 8:12:31 GMT
Not sure local council control is the way forward if you mean ownership because that would involve the massive cost of buying the buildings / business as well as moving all the staff onto local authority pay and pensions and then you have all the extra equality and diversity officers etc that would be needed. Care homes in some ways may not be the biggest part of the answer perhaps its better to try and keep as many people as possible in their own homes but that in itself would require much more care staff. I think much of our social care problem is cultural. In many other cultures, particularly those of Asian influence, people wouldn't dream of sticking their loved ones in a care home. We often view old people as a hassle rather than an important and respected member of the family. often though the women folk of these communities are stay at home wives & mothers, wealth is held in the family etc they can afford to stay home and care whether this will change as time goes and more women continue to stay in work from these communities we will see
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on May 25, 2021 9:20:59 GMT
Have we got the hang of actually taxing the wealthiest in society yet? What about the huge corporations that continue to squirrel money away and pay under their fair share? When I was running a small company, there was nowhere for me to hide and my taxes were expected in full. It was seen as a triumph and a redeeming character trait that Denise Coates paid her taxes in full. We're so conditioned to accept billionaires who avoid paying their taxes that when one actually does, it's seen as a result for society. Start with that and we can begin to look at other incentives. It's a myth companies squirrel money away mostly by lazy and stupid journalists who start by quoting sales and tax paid which is a dead giveaway its rubbish as tax is paid on profits. Amazon is usually quoted if you look at their profits and look into the main reason for the reductions in tax are the cost of building those aircraft hangars / investing in tech the cost of which is allowed to be claimed over the first few years rather than over 10 / 20 years. I've googled repeatedly your statement and found very little to back it up. Feel free to post something to back up your statement.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 25, 2021 16:56:41 GMT
It's a myth companies squirrel money away mostly by lazy and stupid journalists who start by quoting sales and tax paid which is a dead giveaway its rubbish as tax is paid on profits. Amazon is usually quoted if you look at their profits and look into the main reason for the reductions in tax are the cost of building those aircraft hangars / investing in tech the cost of which is allowed to be claimed over the first few years rather than over 10 / 20 years. I've googled repeatedly your statement and found very little to back it up. Feel free to post something to back up your statement. www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/04/amazon-sales-income-europe-corporation-tax-luxembourgAs you asked so nicely ahem, this article here mentions the €78 billion investment in europe over the last decade, assuming this was just buildings ar 20% thats €15 billion plus to write off against taxable profits, different regimes across europe some allow 100% claim in the first year, if the expenditure is on r&d there are also all sorts of grants available etc From the report (having to type on phone without having it open so figures are from memory so may be a little out) sales 900 billion + profits 25 billion+ tax paid 3.2 billion on a flat 20% tax rate thats about 2 billion "short" which based on the 15 billion plus available seems not particularly aggressive, there was another article I read a long time ago that also mentioned something about employee share schemes having an impact but you can go and find that yourself if you are that interested.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on May 25, 2021 22:14:11 GMT
I've googled repeatedly your statement and found very little to back it up. Feel free to post something to back up your statement. www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/04/amazon-sales-income-europe-corporation-tax-luxembourgAs you asked so nicely ahem, this article here mentions the €78 billion investment in europe over the last decade, assuming this was just buildings ar 20% thats €15 billion plus to write off against taxable profits, different regimes across europe some allow 100% claim in the first year, if the expenditure is on r&d there are also all sorts of grants available etc From the report (having to type on phone without having it open so figures are from memory so may be a little out) sales 900 billion + profits 25 billion+ tax paid 3.2 billion on a flat 20% tax rate thats about 2 billion "short" which based on the 15 billion plus available seems not particularly aggressive, there was another article I read a long time ago that also mentioned something about employee share schemes having an impact but you can go and find that yourself if you are that interested. interesting article. It seems what you are saying though is that businesses do pay tax but are effectively using avoidance routes to pay less.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 26, 2021 14:11:03 GMT
www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/04/amazon-sales-income-europe-corporation-tax-luxembourgAs you asked so nicely ahem, this article here mentions the €78 billion investment in europe over the last decade, assuming this was just buildings ar 20% thats €15 billion plus to write off against taxable profits, different regimes across europe some allow 100% claim in the first year, if the expenditure is on r&d there are also all sorts of grants available etc From the report (having to type on phone without having it open so figures are from memory so may be a little out) sales 900 billion + profits 25 billion+ tax paid 3.2 billion on a flat 20% tax rate thats about 2 billion "short" which based on the 15 billion plus available seems not particularly aggressive, there was another article I read a long time ago that also mentioned something about employee share schemes having an impact but you can go and find that yourself if you are that interested. interesting article. It seems what you are saying though is that businesses do pay tax but are effectively using avoidance routes to pay less. It's not avoidance if you build a new factory for £25m it will likely have a useful life of 25 or 50 years, lets assume 50 years in simplistic accounting terms the company charges £50m / 25 years £500k per year in its accounts, for tax purposes this is all disallowed and you get instead a capital allowance, there are various rates and rules between 100% in first year and 8% of the balance (so 8% of £50m, then 8% of £46m etc etc), the £4m here is the put against the profits excluding depreciation and tax is paid on the balance or a taxable loss that can be offset against future profits (or prior year), if like Amazon you are spending billions on buildings / r&d and are a high volume low margin company this will greatly reduce the tax you pay but it is no different to how the rules apply to any company and spending €78 billion to avoid €2 or €3 billion tax is I would suggest not a very likely scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on May 26, 2021 15:03:04 GMT
interesting article. It seems what you are saying though is that businesses do pay tax but are effectively using avoidance routes to pay less. It's not avoidance if you build a new factory for £25m it will likely have a useful life of 25 or 50 years, lets assume 50 years in simplistic accounting terms the company charges £50m / 25 years £500k per year in its accounts, for tax purposes this is all disallowed and you get instead a capital allowance, there are various rates and rules between 100% in first year and 8% of the balance (so 8% of £50m, then 8% of £46m etc etc), the £4m here is the put against the profits excluding depreciation and tax is paid on the balance or a taxable loss that can be offset against future profits (or prior year), if like Amazon you are spending billions on buildings / r&d and are a high volume low margin company this will greatly reduce the tax you pay but it is no different to how the rules apply to any company and spending €78 billion to avoid €2 or €3 billion tax is I would suggest not a very likely scenario. And....breathe! It never ceases to amuse me the lengths to which some people will go in order to justify rich corporations/people not having to contribute a bit more towards the society they are a part of...
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on May 26, 2021 15:25:25 GMT
It's not avoidance if you build a new factory for £25m it will likely have a useful life of 25 or 50 years, lets assume 50 years in simplistic accounting terms the company charges £50m / 25 years £500k per year in its accounts, for tax purposes this is all disallowed and you get instead a capital allowance, there are various rates and rules between 100% in first year and 8% of the balance (so 8% of £50m, then 8% of £46m etc etc), the £4m here is the put against the profits excluding depreciation and tax is paid on the balance or a taxable loss that can be offset against future profits (or prior year), if like Amazon you are spending billions on buildings / r&d and are a high volume low margin company this will greatly reduce the tax you pay but it is no different to how the rules apply to any company and spending €78 billion to avoid €2 or €3 billion tax is I would suggest not a very likely scenario. And....breathe! It never ceases to amuse me the lengths to which some people will go in order to justify rich corporations/people not having to contribute a bit more towards the society they are a part of... I think it's also pretty widely known that many large businesses set up shell companies in zero tax regions who 'charge' their European companies for all manner of nonsense in order to transfer profits out and therefore avoid tax. Weren't Nike implicated in this a few years back for selling image rights or something? Anyone who thinks big business is squeeky clean is deluded.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on May 26, 2021 20:19:40 GMT
Not sure local council control is the way forward if you mean ownership because that would involve the massive cost of buying the buildings / business as well as moving all the staff onto local authority pay and pensions and then you have all the extra equality and diversity officers etc that would be needed. Care homes in some ways may not be the biggest part of the answer perhaps its better to try and keep as many people as possible in their own homes but that in itself would require much more care staff. We often view old people as a hassle rather than an important and respected member of the family. This is how my kids feel about me. I’m only 42!
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on May 26, 2021 20:20:25 GMT
We often view old people as a hassle rather than an important and respected member of the family. This is how my kids feel about me. I’m only 42! Surprised they haven’t already booked me into Dignitas.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 27, 2021 7:36:15 GMT
It's not avoidance if you build a new factory for £25m it will likely have a useful life of 25 or 50 years, lets assume 50 years in simplistic accounting terms the company charges £50m / 25 years £500k per year in its accounts, for tax purposes this is all disallowed and you get instead a capital allowance, there are various rates and rules between 100% in first year and 8% of the balance (so 8% of £50m, then 8% of £46m etc etc), the £4m here is the put against the profits excluding depreciation and tax is paid on the balance or a taxable loss that can be offset against future profits (or prior year), if like Amazon you are spending billions on buildings / r&d and are a high volume low margin company this will greatly reduce the tax you pay but it is no different to how the rules apply to any company and spending €78 billion to avoid €2 or €3 billion tax is I would suggest not a very likely scenario. And....breathe! It never ceases to amuse me the lengths to which some people will go in order to justify rich corporations/people not having to contribute a bit more towards the society they are a part of... I just explained the way tax accounting / regulations work for every company in the country but you go ahead change the tax law and say no deductions for capital investment and watch what happens..... Like I say Bezos didnt get to be a billionaire by spending £78 billion to save £3 billion in tax, back to ignore for you now.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on May 27, 2021 7:58:55 GMT
And....breathe! It never ceases to amuse me the lengths to which some people will go in order to justify rich corporations/people not having to contribute a bit more towards the society they are a part of... I just explained the way tax accounting / regulations work for every company in the country but you go ahead change the tax law and say no deductions for capital investment and watch what happens..... Like I say Bezos didnt get to be a billionaire by spending £78 billion to save £3 billion in tax, back to ignore for you now. What about Nike? www.icij.org/investigations/paradise-papers/nike-could-owe-billions-in-back-tax-if-new-eu-probe-finds-against-it/
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 27, 2021 8:34:22 GMT
Some of it perfectly normal for example the supposed pooling of sales, if they ship all the trainers from holland or direct from their manufacture to the end customer (jd sports or whoever) then all the income is correctly booked to Holland, royalty payments not unusual otherwise the taxpayer in say the US gets a bit pissed they take all the cost of designing / developing the trainer and other countries get the tax from profits. Paying the royalties to a company not liable for tax does look dodgy / sharp practice whats not clear after that is what happens to the cash, if they send it back to the USA they have to pay dividend tax, if they pass it through to another company same thing so while no doubt this wont be costing them more tax I very much doubt it also ends with them paying no tax either. As i've said many times corporation tax was designed for a bygone age when companies were not global in the end the solution is to probably move to some kind of sales tax and or tax based on physical presence (staff / office space / freight or whatever), these all increase the cost to the customer which essentially corporation tax already does.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on May 27, 2021 8:59:13 GMT
Some of it perfectly normal for example the supposed pooling of sales, if they ship all the trainers from holland or direct from their manufacture to the end customer (jd sports or whoever) then all the income is correctly booked to Holland, royalty payments not unusual otherwise the taxpayer in say the US gets a bit pissed they take all the cost of designing / developing the trainer and other countries get the tax from profits. Paying the royalties to a company not liable for tax does look dodgy / sharp practice whats not clear after that is what happens to the cash, if they send it back to the USA they have to pay dividend tax, if they pass it through to another company same thing so while no doubt this wont be costing them more tax I very much doubt it also ends with them paying no tax either. As i've said many times corporation tax was designed for a bygone age when companies were not global in the end the solution is to probably move to some kind of sales tax and or tax based on physical presence (staff / office space / freight or whatever), these all increase the cost to the customer which essentially corporation tax already does. So the solution is scrapping corporation tax and coming up with something better?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 27, 2021 9:01:29 GMT
Some of it perfectly normal for example the supposed pooling of sales, if they ship all the trainers from holland or direct from their manufacture to the end customer (jd sports or whoever) then all the income is correctly booked to Holland, royalty payments not unusual otherwise the taxpayer in say the US gets a bit pissed they take all the cost of designing / developing the trainer and other countries get the tax from profits. Paying the royalties to a company not liable for tax does look dodgy / sharp practice whats not clear after that is what happens to the cash, if they send it back to the USA they have to pay dividend tax, if they pass it through to another company same thing so while no doubt this wont be costing them more tax I very much doubt it also ends with them paying no tax either. As i've said many times corporation tax was designed for a bygone age when companies were not global in the end the solution is to probably move to some kind of sales tax and or tax based on physical presence (staff / office space / freight or whatever), these all increase the cost to the customer which essentially corporation tax already does. So the solution is scrapping corporation tax and coming up with something better? Yes I believe so it wont happen of course.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on May 27, 2021 10:39:48 GMT
So the solution is scrapping corporation tax and coming up with something better? Yes I believe so it wont happen of course. I'm not going to sit here and say you are wrong, as it's clear you know more about it than me. I've not done any investigation. What is clear though, is that big companies are able to use the kind of benefits that are intended for smaller businesses to greatly benefit themselves and even do it exponentially, depending on the amount they are able to keep moving through their books. It is wrong, even if it's seen as legal. We should be doing better than this. Massive companies should be paying more tax rather than getting deductions all over the place by effectively expanding their global monopoly. It might be legal, but it's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on May 27, 2021 10:40:15 GMT
A lot of people have released equity in their property during the last 15 months or so . Everybody was piling into property because pensions are shit for a number of years the latest boom is partly due to the stamp duty relaxation.
Town centres are now massively empty unless boohoo can renegotiate some extremely low rents i suspect most will be demolished and used for housing but the sort of housing that will be built will be shit, no fit place for a new family to prosper.
so , somehow i think that taxation will be the answer , a property value collapse would be interesting . Perhaps only 1 property per family including trusts etc ( ie no loopholes )and then a second property tax starting at say 150% of the rates and increasing dependent on the number of propertis held. So someone with a property portfolio of 10 properties might be paying 1500% rates. Pass it onto the tenants ?
The uk economy has always grown using property as a stimulus. This is the sector that has to suffer . I dont think many lay people will disagree.
One thing is for sure , Theresa May thought she was going to be reelected with a big majority pre brexit agmt and because some tory wag decided that they were going to make social care more expensive she got clobberedand ended up being supported by the dup to run parliament. Boris got elected for 3 reasons 1 labour are shit 2 get brexit done 3 he said he would reform social care.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on Jun 5, 2021 8:09:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on Jun 9, 2021 13:16:49 GMT
|
|