RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:
If you don't believe me, ask yourself why, across the world, corporation tax is based on profits? If your idea worked, why is no one doing it? (This doesn't prove you wrong, but it suggests you need to come up with a detailed explanation of how it will work.)

it turns out someone is sort of doing it, the mighty Estonia, I've taken this from a website called something like Work in Estonia (it might have been Live in Estonia)

"The income tax rate for private entrepreneurs and corporations is 20%.

Corporate earnings taxation in Estonia is truly unique – it shifts the moment of corporate taxation from the moment of earning the profits to the moment of their distribution.

This means that earning profit in itself does not trigger income tax liability. The tax obligation arises only when earnings are distributed to shareholders. If the profit distributed to shareholders originates from dividends received from a subsidiary or permanent establishment in another country, there’ll be no tax to pay on profit distribution."


The thing about noting this is I don't want to limit the conversation to a particular plan on what should replace corporation tax, partly because I wouldn't want to discuss it with a diagnosis already in mind, and partly I've never put the time and effort into devising a new tax system, I'm probably not odd in not doing that but you never know. I'm merely of a view that taxing business activity and/or taxing distributed income is a much more efficient model than taxing capital income. I'm not in advance thinking the Estonia model offers a huge amount to us, it might, but I suspect they've a much younger working population, entirely different demographics around their retired and retiring population, entirely difference pension schemes,

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
At school and college, I did feel tax needed some reform, but my opinion was definitely formed by those I was around. Given some of the economic and political events we got to attend were those organised by the Young Tories, Liam Fox, and other Tories, my views as an 18 year old were very different to what they are now, after years living in the real world.

Given that at 20 I was involved with Boris' London Mayor election campaign...

Jeez, I was a dick who knew nothing back then.

Now, I can see how any threat to a pension pot someone like Banquo feels like he has fairly grown is greeted by scorn.

But I can also see how society needs a bit of change to work for the many. Young people have it both easier than ever and harder than ever.

And that clash often has the job market and therefore economic policy at its heart.

Finding a balance to that is difficult, but we never said politics was easy!

My biggest problem with the current Labour leadership is their lack of respect for the sheer difficulty of the task ahead.

My biggest problem with the current government is that they don't give a toss for the difficulty if they can line their own pockets.

Boris Johnson's previous conduct should mean he is ineligible for office, not that he is Prime Minister!!!

Why no-one is talking about it in more detail I have no idea.

He is not to be trusted, he has no backbone, and he only cares about himself. Why the hell would you want to CHOOSE him as your Prime Minister!!!

I don't 'feel' I have fairly grown it, I have fairly grown it . But ok, come after me again, its not like I haven't paid a fortune in taxes over a 37 year working career.....and never avoided them (well other than pension contributions and ISA's). Being a shareholder directly or indirectly is not a bad thing.

Saying you "feel" something isn't disparaging at all, and it's not intended as such.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:
If you don't believe me, ask yourself why, across the world, corporation tax is based on profits? If your idea worked, why is no one doing it? (This doesn't prove you wrong, but it suggests you need to come up with a detailed explanation of how it will work.)

it turns out someone is sort of doing it, the mighty Estonia, I've taken this from a website called something like Work in Estonia (it might have been Live in Estonia)

"The income tax rate for private entrepreneurs and corporations is 20%.

Corporate earnings taxation in Estonia is truly unique – it shifts the moment of corporate taxation from the moment of earning the profits to the moment of their distribution.

This means that earning profit in itself does not trigger income tax liability. The tax obligation arises only when earnings are distributed to shareholders. If the profit distributed to shareholders originates from dividends received from a subsidiary or permanent establishment in another country, there’ll be no tax to pay on profit distribution."


The thing about noting this is I don't want to limit the conversation to a particular plan on what should replace corporation tax, partly because I wouldn't want to discuss it with a diagnosis already in mind, and partly I've never put the time and effort into devising a new tax system, I'm probably not odd in not doing that but you never know. I'm merely of a view that taxing business activity and/or taxing distributed income is a much more efficient model than taxing capital income. I'm not in advance thinking the Estonia model offers a huge amount to us, it might, but I suspect they've a much younger working population, entirely different demographics around their retired and retiring population, entirely difference pension schemes,

So Estonia taxes net profit, but only on the part which is distributed as dividends? Weird. I think my life is too short to wonder too deeply why they do this .

In the end, re tax on companies, the truth is that in the UK only a small % of overall tax comes from corporation tax. So in theory they could dispense with the whole thing... if they were able to increase other taxes to take its place. But that's politically difficult and it is of course less risky to collect taxes in a variety of ways (less volatile).

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Tactical voting made easy (if you want to stop No Deal, or Boris's hard Brexit):
1) Look up the 2017 results for your constituency,
2) vote for the the most popular non-Tory party.

For me that's Labour (another wasted vote for a candidate with a strong majority...but what else can I do?).

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:
If you don't believe me, ask yourself why, across the world, corporation tax is based on profits? If your idea worked, why is no one doing it? (This doesn't prove you wrong, but it suggests you need to come up with a detailed explanation of how it will work.)

it turns out someone is sort of doing it, the mighty Estonia, I've taken this from a website called something like Work in Estonia (it might have been Live in Estonia)

"The income tax rate for private entrepreneurs and corporations is 20%.

Corporate earnings taxation in Estonia is truly unique – it shifts the moment of corporate taxation from the moment of earning the profits to the moment of their distribution.

This means that earning profit in itself does not trigger income tax liability. The tax obligation arises only when earnings are distributed to shareholders. If the profit distributed to shareholders originates from dividends received from a subsidiary or permanent establishment in another country, there’ll be no tax to pay on profit distribution."


The thing about noting this is I don't want to limit the conversation to a particular plan on what should replace corporation tax, partly because I wouldn't want to discuss it with a diagnosis already in mind, and partly I've never put the time and effort into devising a new tax system, I'm probably not odd in not doing that but you never know. I'm merely of a view that taxing business activity and/or taxing distributed income is a much more efficient model than taxing capital income. I'm not in advance thinking the Estonia model offers a huge amount to us, it might, but I suspect they've a much younger working population, entirely different demographics around their retired and retiring population, entirely difference pension schemes,

So Estonia taxes net profit, but only on the part which is distributed as dividends? Weird. I think my life is too short to wonder too deeply why they do this .

In the end, re tax on companies, the truth is that in the UK only a small % of overall tax comes from corporation tax. So in theory they could dispense with the whole thing... if they were able to increase other taxes to take its place. But that's politically difficult and it is of course less risky to collect taxes in a variety of ways (less volatile).

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

it turns out someone is sort of doing it, the mighty Estonia, I've taken this from a website called something like Work in Estonia (it might have been Live in Estonia)

"The income tax rate for private entrepreneurs and corporations is 20%.

Corporate earnings taxation in Estonia is truly unique – it shifts the moment of corporate taxation from the moment of earning the profits to the moment of their distribution.

This means that earning profit in itself does not trigger income tax liability. The tax obligation arises only when earnings are distributed to shareholders. If the profit distributed to shareholders originates from dividends received from a subsidiary or permanent establishment in another country, there’ll be no tax to pay on profit distribution."


The thing about noting this is I don't want to limit the conversation to a particular plan on what should replace corporation tax, partly because I wouldn't want to discuss it with a diagnosis already in mind, and partly I've never put the time and effort into devising a new tax system, I'm probably not odd in not doing that but you never know. I'm merely of a view that taxing business activity and/or taxing distributed income is a much more efficient model than taxing capital income. I'm not in advance thinking the Estonia model offers a huge amount to us, it might, but I suspect they've a much younger working population, entirely different demographics around their retired and retiring population, entirely difference pension schemes,

So Estonia taxes net profit, but only on the part which is distributed as dividends? Weird. I think my life is too short to wonder too deeply why they do this .

In the end, re tax on companies, the truth is that in the UK only a small % of overall tax comes from corporation tax. So in theory they could dispense with the whole thing... if they were able to increase other taxes to take its place. But that's politically difficult and it is of course less risky to collect taxes in a variety of ways (less volatile).

You don't need to wonder, it's a more efficient model than taxing capital income, and do can still arrive at whatever you perceive as 'fair' by whatever model you have to tax distributed income.

I agree it's politically difficult to change something like corporation tax, it's much easier to stand up and lie abut cutting taxes and increasing spending on houses, police, hospitals, pensions, animals.... but we do need to address our productivity, and the idea of remodelling corporation tax is a well known one, popular even, albeit not enjoying universal hacking from economists

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: So Estonia taxes net profit, but only on the part which is distributed as dividends? Weird. I think my life is too short to wonder too deeply why they do this .

In the end, re tax on companies, the truth is that in the UK only a small % of overall tax comes from corporation tax. So in theory they could dispense with the whole thing... if they were able to increase other taxes to take its place. But that's politically difficult and it is of course less risky to collect taxes in a variety of ways (less volatile).

You don't need to wonder, it's a more efficient model than taxing capital income, and do can still arrive at whatever you perceive as 'fair' by whatever model you have to tax distributed income.

I agree it's politically difficult to change something like corporation tax, it's much easier to stand up and lie abut cutting taxes and increasing spending on houses, police, hospitals, pensions, animals.... but we do need to address our productivity, and the idea of remodelling corporation tax is a well known one, popular even, albeit not enjoying universal hacking from economists

I'm not sure why you describe the Estonian system as efficient: it's nothing like the system you've been advocating.

It's a tax on net profit (just like every other country); the only difference is that the tax only becomes liable if a dividend is paid. So it is a tax on profit (which you have said is inefficient), but with the twist that it encourages companies to retain profits to reinvest in the business.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:
You don't need to wonder, it's a more efficient model than taxing capital income, and do can still arrive at whatever you perceive as 'fair' by whatever model you have to tax distributed income.

I agree it's politically difficult to change something like corporation tax, it's much easier to stand up and lie abut cutting taxes and increasing spending on houses, police, hospitals, pensions, animals.... but we do need to address our productivity, and the idea of remodelling corporation tax is a well known one, popular even, albeit not enjoying universal hacking from economists

I'm not sure why you describe the Estonian system as efficient: it's nothing like the system you've been advocating.

It's a tax on net profit (just like every other country); the only difference is that the tax only becomes liable if a dividend is paid. So it is a tax on profit (which you have said is inefficient), but with the twist that it encourages companies to retain profits to reinvest in the business.

I don't think at any point I've raised a problem with tax bring levied on capital withdrawn from the company, I've commented that tax on capital income is a bad idea, and this is one alternative, albeit far from the only one

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I'm not sure why you describe the Estonian system as efficient: it's nothing like the system you've been advocating.

It's a tax on net profit (just like every other country); the only difference is that the tax only becomes liable if a dividend is paid. So it is a tax on profit (which you have said is inefficient), but with the twist that it encourages companies to retain profits to reinvest in the business.

I don't think at any point I've raised a problem with tax bring levied on capital withdrawn from the company, I've commented that tax on capital income is a bad idea, and this is one alternative, albeit far from the only one

Dividends are an example of capital income.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:I think Corbyn was pretty effective in last night's debate. No knockout blows, but I thought it went well from Labour's perspective.

We shall see if it makes any difference in the polls.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:I think Corbyn was pretty effective in last night's debate. No knockout blows, but I thought it went well from Labour's perspective.

We shall see if it makes any difference in the polls.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:I think Corbyn was pretty effective in last night's debate. No knockout blows, but I thought it went well from Labour's perspective.

We shall see if it makes any difference in the polls.

view seemed to be that as Boris didn't fck up, score draw. Twitter row likely more damaging to Tories.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:I think Corbyn was pretty effective in last night's debate. No knockout blows, but I thought it went well from Labour's perspective.

We shall see if it makes any difference in the polls.

view seemed to be that as Boris didn't fck up, score draw. Twitter row likely more damaging to Tories.

Mellsblue wrote:Per a couple of points above. YouGov polls:
‘Leaving aside your one party preference, who do you think performed best overall in tonight’s debate’: Boris 51% v 49% JC
26% thought that both Boris and JC did well....

More stats here:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... 1119_w.pdf

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Per a couple of points above. YouGov polls:
‘Leaving aside your one party preference, who do you think performed best overall in tonight’s debate’: Boris 51% v 49% JC
26% thought that both Boris and JC did well....

More stats here:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... 1119_w.pdf

A few interesting points coming out of that data*:

Corbyn was the significant winner amongst people who had not yet decided on who they were going to vote for. He also got 67% of people thinking he did well, compared with 59% for Johnson. 44% of 2017 Conservative voters thought he did well, as opposed to 33% of of 2017 Labour voters for Johnson.

Given the pre-existing anti-Corbyn personal animus, you'd have to say that a debate where he came level with Johnson as an individual was a pretty solid result. I'd've been interested if the poll had been taken both before and after, to see whether any minds had been changed or if people had just heard what they wanted to hear and blanked out anything else (the stats on who won for the various age groups suggest the latter!).

Puja

*with the obvious caveat that stats can be made to say anything you want and, with my prexisting opinion that Johnson is a bloviating fucktrombone, I'm a touch biased in which ones I pull out.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Per a couple of points above. YouGov polls:
‘Leaving aside your one party preference, who do you think performed best overall in tonight’s debate’: Boris 51% v 49% JC
26% thought that both Boris and JC did well....

More stats here:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... 1119_w.pdf

A few interesting points coming out of that data*:

Corbyn was the significant winner amongst people who had not yet decided on who they were going to vote for. He also got 67% of people thinking he did well, compared with 59% for Johnson. 44% of 2017 Conservative voters thought he did well, as opposed to 33% of of 2017 Labour voters for Johnson.

Given the pre-existing anti-Corbyn personal animus, you'd have to say that a debate where he came level with Johnson as an individual was a pretty solid result. I'd've been interested if the poll had been taken both before and after, to see whether any minds had been changed or if people had just heard what they wanted to hear and blanked out anything else (the stats on who won for the various age groups suggest the latter!).

Puja

*with the obvious caveat that stats can be made to say anything you want and, with my prexisting opinion that Johnson is a bloviating fucktrombone, I'm a touch biased in which ones I pull out.

It’s true you can make statistics say anything you want:
a) Conservative voters not part of a cult and therefore more reasonable and level headed with regards opposition politicians.
b) Johnson wins, making it a literal victory, a moral victory, a red, white and blue victory and a Churchillian victory.
c) Corbyn suffers from pre-existing personal animus but bloviating fucktrombone Johnson does not.
d) Corbyn repeats trick from 2017 of being victorious/level despite stats showing that he lost.
e) Corbynites on Twitter saying YouGov is a bias tool of the Conservative party until realising they had Corbyn winning amongst swing voters. Upon which, there was a volte fact to saying YouGov’s results are beyond question.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Per a couple of points above. YouGov polls:
‘Leaving aside your one party preference, who do you think performed best overall in tonight’s debate’: Boris 51% v 49% JC
26% thought that both Boris and JC did well....

More stats here:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... 1119_w.pdf

A few interesting points coming out of that data*:

Corbyn was the significant winner amongst people who had not yet decided on who they were going to vote for. He also got 67% of people thinking he did well, compared with 59% for Johnson. 44% of 2017 Conservative voters thought he did well, as opposed to 33% of of 2017 Labour voters for Johnson.

Given the pre-existing anti-Corbyn personal animus, you'd have to say that a debate where he came level with Johnson as an individual was a pretty solid result. I'd've been interested if the poll had been taken both before and after, to see whether any minds had been changed or if people had just heard what they wanted to hear and blanked out anything else (the stats on who won for the various age groups suggest the latter!).

Puja

*with the obvious caveat that stats can be made to say anything you want and, with my prexisting opinion that Johnson is a bloviating fucktrombone, I'm a touch biased in which ones I pull out.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
A few interesting points coming out of that data*:

Corbyn was the significant winner amongst people who had not yet decided on who they were going to vote for. He also got 67% of people thinking he did well, compared with 59% for Johnson. 44% of 2017 Conservative voters thought he did well, as opposed to 33% of of 2017 Labour voters for Johnson.

Given the pre-existing anti-Corbyn personal animus, you'd have to say that a debate where he came level with Johnson as an individual was a pretty solid result. I'd've been interested if the poll had been taken both before and after, to see whether any minds had been changed or if people had just heard what they wanted to hear and blanked out anything else (the stats on who won for the various age groups suggest the latter!).

Puja

*with the obvious caveat that stats can be made to say anything you want and, with my prexisting opinion that Johnson is a bloviating fucktrombone, I'm a touch biased in which ones I pull out.

It’s true you can make statistics say anything you want:
a) Conservative voters not part of a cult and therefore more reasonable and level headed with regards opposition politicians.
b) Johnson wins, making it a literal victory, a moral victory, a red, white and blue victory and a Churchillian victory.
c) Corbyn suffers from pre-existing personal animus but bloviating fucktrombone Johnson does not.
d) Corbyn repeats trick from 2017 of being victorious/level despite stats showing that he lost.
e) Corbynites on Twitter saying YouGov is a bias tool of the Conservative party until realising they had Corbyn winning amongst swing voters. Upon which, there was a volte fact to saying YouGov’s results are beyond question.

I was working while the debate was going on, so didn't watch, not that it would have changed my opinion...

But I just consistently feel like Labour screw up their advantages. Corbyn did not have enough preparation and his answers that I saw did not have enough bite.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Per a couple of points above. YouGov polls:
‘Leaving aside your one party preference, who do you think performed best overall in tonight’s debate’: Boris 51% v 49% JC
26% thought that both Boris and JC did well....

More stats here:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... 1119_w.pdf

A few interesting points coming out of that data*:

Corbyn was the significant winner amongst people who had not yet decided on who they were going to vote for. He also got 67% of people thinking he did well, compared with 59% for Johnson. 44% of 2017 Conservative voters thought he did well, as opposed to 33% of of 2017 Labour voters for Johnson.

Given the pre-existing anti-Corbyn personal animus, you'd have to say that a debate where he came level with Johnson as an individual was a pretty solid result. I'd've been interested if the poll had been taken both before and after, to see whether any minds had been changed or if people had just heard what they wanted to hear and blanked out anything else (the stats on who won for the various age groups suggest the latter!).

Puja

*with the obvious caveat that stats can be made to say anything you want and, with my prexisting opinion that Johnson is a bloviating fucktrombone, I'm a touch biased in which ones I pull out.

Think the Tories are just relieved Boris didn't do anything daft. Like leak the NI giveaway .

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
A few interesting points coming out of that data*:

Corbyn was the significant winner amongst people who had not yet decided on who they were going to vote for. He also got 67% of people thinking he did well, compared with 59% for Johnson. 44% of 2017 Conservative voters thought he did well, as opposed to 33% of of 2017 Labour voters for Johnson.

Given the pre-existing anti-Corbyn personal animus, you'd have to say that a debate where he came level with Johnson as an individual was a pretty solid result. I'd've been interested if the poll had been taken both before and after, to see whether any minds had been changed or if people had just heard what they wanted to hear and blanked out anything else (the stats on who won for the various age groups suggest the latter!).

Puja

*with the obvious caveat that stats can be made to say anything you want and, with my prexisting opinion that Johnson is a bloviating fucktrombone, I'm a touch biased in which ones I pull out.

It’s true you can make statistics say anything you want:
a) Conservative voters not part of a cult and therefore more reasonable and level headed with regards opposition politicians.
b) Johnson wins, making it a literal victory, a moral victory, a red, white and blue victory and a Churchillian victory.
c) Corbyn suffers from pre-existing personal animus but bloviating fucktrombone Johnson does not.
d) Corbyn repeats trick from 2017 of being victorious/level despite stats showing that he lost.
e) Corbynites on Twitter saying YouGov is a bias tool of the Conservative party until realising they had Corbyn winning amongst swing voters. Upon which, there was a volte fact to saying YouGov’s results are beyond question.

I was working while the debate was going on, so didn't watch, not that it would have changed my opinion...

But I just consistently feel like Labour screw up their advantages. Corbyn did not have enough preparation and his answers that I saw did not have enough bite.

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: It’s true you can make statistics say anything you want:
a) Conservative voters not part of a cult and therefore more reasonable and level headed with regards opposition politicians.
b) Johnson wins, making it a literal victory, a moral victory, a red, white and blue victory and a Churchillian victory.
c) Corbyn suffers from pre-existing personal animus but bloviating fucktrombone Johnson does not.
d) Corbyn repeats trick from 2017 of being victorious/level despite stats showing that he lost.
e) Corbynites on Twitter saying YouGov is a bias tool of the Conservative party until realising they had Corbyn winning amongst swing voters. Upon which, there was a volte fact to saying YouGov’s results are beyond question.

I was working while the debate was going on, so didn't watch, not that it would have changed my opinion...

But I just consistently feel like Labour screw up their advantages. Corbyn did not have enough preparation and his answers that I saw did not have enough bite.

Agreed - Johnson actually prepublished the questions he was going to ask on the Brexit policy and Corbyn still didn't have a pithy, pre-prepared answer ready. Or, indeed, any answer at all.

Hell, I'm no politician, but surely it's better to say something like, "Which way I'd vote in a new referendum isn't relevant - my job isn't to push my EU opinions on people, but to give them the choice and let the people decide," than just to avoid the question and hope it goes away. If he'd had an answer, any answer, that wouldn't get literally laughed at, then he'd've come out of that debate a lot stronger.

Mells - Corbyn's a lot more unpopular with the British public than Johnson is, from the polls at the start of this campaign, so he has got a lot more ground to make up. Hence my thought that a score draw is better progress for Corbyn than Johnson.

Puja