Osborne pledges to cut corporation tax by 5% or more - Polidicks

[QUOTE]George Osborne has pledged to slash corporation tax to encourage businesses to still invest in the UK following the EU referendum vote. In an interview with the Financial Times, the chancellor said he would cut the rate to below 15% - some 5% lower than its current 20% rate. That would give the UK the lowest corporation tax of any major economy. Mr Osborne said the cut was part of his plans to build a "super-competitive economy" with low tax rates. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36699642"]Source[/URL] A few days ago he said he would have to raise taxes, so sounds like the working class is about to get fucked in the arse by Brexit.

So begins the race to the bottom. I wouldn't mind so much but it's salt in the wound when ado many corporations use loopholes to pay barely anything. how do they plan to address the deficit? Go so low that it overflows the signed bit limit in computers so everyone thinks we're super rich. Takes the piss.

Mr Osborne's economic policy has always been a joke. We don't have money to let people go to university for only a lot of money, so we have no choice to fuck them with monumental debts, but let's cut tax on everyone rich because trickle down economics is not a joke, and now let's cut disabled funding and watch the death rate of the most vulnerable people in the country spike. Fucking hell why did anyone vote for him.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;50640378]Mr Osborne's economic policy has always been a joke. We don't have money to let people go to university for only a lot of money, so we have no choice to fuck them with monumental debts, but let's cut tax on everyone rich because trickle down economics is not a joke, and now let's cut disabled funding and watch the death rate of the most vulnerable people in the country spike. Fucking hell why did anyone vote for him.[/QUOTE] George Osborne's economic policy is self-serving and nothing more. Help the rich get richer, let the poor get poorer, get your own slice of the proverbial pie in return

Question for non-brits, who in the fuck keeps electing this guy

[QUOTE=Sableye;50640655]Question for non-brits, who in the fuck keeps electing this guy[/QUOTE] Old and upper middle class people mostly.

[QUOTE=Sableye;50640655]Question for non-brits, who in the fuck keeps electing this guy[/QUOTE] Conservatives are pretty popular in England [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results[/url]

[QUOTE=Morgen;50640767]Conservatives are pretty popular in England [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results[/url][/QUOTE] Ah yes, nothing says popularity like 36%

[QUOTE=Sableye;50640655]Question for non-brits, who in the fuck keeps electing this guy[/QUOTE] Lib Dems are too small to gain media coverage and expand; they lack much of the shock factor or outsider qualities other small parties used to gain ground. Labour is unelectable; the public cannot put support behind Corbyn no matter what his views are because he has come across as ineffective, weak and wavering in his beliefs - yes i understand this was definatly grossly exxagarated by the tabloids but stuff like his half arsed approach to Brexit can't be ignored. The SNP appeal too much to Scottish interests only and seem more concerned with being an issue party in favour of a referendum than getting into Government proper. The Greens are tiny and have again ruined their own reputation during the elections and UKIP is likely done for now that a Brexit has been achived. However! If Labour get a more centerist leader in and aggressively attack a most likely even further right new Conservastive Prime Minister we could finally see a swing to another party in government.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;50640832]Ah yes, nothing says popularity like 36%[/QUOTE] Gotta love FPTP.

[QUOTE=Sableye;50640655]Question for non-brits, who in the fuck keeps electing this guy[/QUOTE] Seems like his constituency is a tory stronghold. I think its one of those "that place always votes tory so lets put someone we want in there even though they're not from the area" Seriously though England is messed up we keep voting Tory. We see something go bad and decide to vote for someone to make it worse. Maybe its empire guilt, we're masochists bent on punishing ourselves for the sins of our forebearers.

My constituency elects a climate change sceptic, Eurosceptic and anti lgbt guy whilst that is the exact opposite of the vast majority of people's opinions (we voted remain by 20%) but he wears a blue rosette so he could be a fucking turnip and he'd get elected.

I know how the world ends - George Osborne and Theresa May have a child and his name is The Antichrist.

Why though? Ireland is just next door, in the EU and has a Considerably lower corporation tax rate. Why would 5% make such a big difference if companies had already planned on going elsewhere? It seems like he just wan't to seem like he's doing something.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;50643229]Why though? Ireland is just next door, in the EU and has a Considerably lower corporation tax rate. Why would 5% make such a big difference if companies had already planned on going elsewhere? It seems like he just wan't to seem like he's doing something.[/QUOTE] He's hoping it'll offset leaving the EU (it won't).

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;50643229]Why though? Ireland is just next door, in the EU and has a Considerably lower corporation tax rate. Why would 5% make such a big difference if companies had already planned on going elsewhere? It seems like he just wan't to seem like he's doing something.[/QUOTE] Britain's comparably low corporation tax was actually already attracting companies here (I can't find the article right now), even though they could still get even lower rates in the Netherlands/Luxembourg/Ireland. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Corporation tax is a very, very bad tax. It has extremely high incentives to avoid, as not doing so if your rivals do can put you out of business, unlike as an individual. They also have very large resources to avoid the tax, unlike individuals. The entirety of the tax is passed on and not paid directly for in the form of reduced wages for employees and reduced investment. So actually, yes, I think it is a good idea to reduce it, and in the long term I would reduce it even further. And, ultimately, in a globalised world, corporation taxes have to be competitive because capital is also mobile. Even if your rates can't actually reach the levels of Ireland and so on, they will still help if they are relatively lower.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50644108]Britain's comparably low corporation tax was actually already attracting companies here (I can't find the article right now), even though they could still get even lower rates in the Netherlands/Luxembourg/Ireland. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Corporation tax is a very, very bad tax. It has extremely high incentives to avoid, as not doing so if your rivals do can put you out of business, unlike as an individual. They also have very large resources to avoid the tax, unlike individuals. The entirety of the tax is passed on and not paid directly for in the form of reduced wages for employees and reduced investment. So actually, yes, I think it is a good idea to reduce it, and in the long term I would reduce it even further. And, ultimately, in a globalised world, corporation taxes have to be competitive because capital is also mobile. Even if your rates can't actually reach the levels of Ireland and so on, they will still help if they are relatively lower.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure it depends on a lot of other factors too. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tax_rates_in_Europe&oldid=726995698"]According to Wikipedia[/URL] (This [I]should[/I] be sourced properly...), Germany has 30%+ corporation tax and additionally the employers have to pay for health care and pensions. We seem to be doing pretty well with that. Then again, it's probably a bit lower because taxes here depend on a ton of factors aside from income.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50644108]Britain's comparably low corporation tax was actually already attracting companies here (I can't find the article right now), even though they could still get even lower rates in the Netherlands/Luxembourg/Ireland. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Corporation tax is a very, very bad tax. It has extremely high incentives to avoid, as not doing so if your rivals do can put you out of business, unlike as an individual. They also have very large resources to avoid the tax, unlike individuals. The entirety of the tax is passed on and not paid directly for in the form of reduced wages for employees and reduced investment. So actually, yes, I think it is a good idea to reduce it, and in the long term I would reduce it even further. And, ultimately, in a globalised world, corporation taxes have to be competitive because capital is also mobile. Even if your rates can't actually reach the levels of Ireland and so on, they will still help if they are relatively lower.[/QUOTE] So your logic is that because corporations have the money to avoid paying tax, we shouldn't tax them? Also so they don't cut wages to recoup losses. I don't understand. I don't even think I want to understand why you want to do this. Tax the poor more and let the rich get richer, but at least the corporations will do business here because we don't bother taxing them. There's no sense of equality or fairness, no sense of people paying in and getting a better society as a result. Just throw the vulnerable under the bus because they're vulnerable, and who cares if they suffer because they will never be in a position to do anything about it.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50644951]So your logic is that because corporations have the money to avoid paying tax, we shouldn't tax them? Also so they don't cut wages to recoup losses. I don't understand. I don't even think I want to understand why you want to do this. Tax the poor more and let the rich get richer, but at least the corporations will do business here because we don't bother taxing them. There's no sense of equality or fairness, no sense of people paying in and getting a better society as a result. Just throw the vulnerable under the bus because they're vulnerable, and who cares if they suffer because they will never be in a position to do anything about it.[/QUOTE] Not taxing corporations doesn't mean not taxing those who own or work for the corporations. Lowering or removing corporate tax simply gives a company more flexibility as to how it uses its money. It can reinvest the money in itself, or it can increase wages for employees to make itself more attractive to potential hires, or if it finds that it has too much cash to use, it will pay it out as dividends to its shareholders, at which point it will get taxed as usual. A lower corporate tax can coexist with lower income tax for the lower brackets, as well as higher income tax for the highest brackets. The two are not mutually exclusive. [editline]5th July 2016[/editline] Also, it's not that corporations have the money to avoid paying tax, it's that they have the [i]ability[/i] to, because capital is highly mobile in this day and age. By instituting high corporate taxes, they simply try all sorts of ways and means to avoid them. Instead of playing a cat and mouse game with them and trying to close loopholes as they get found, another idea is to simply lower the tax rate and make up the loss in tax revenue somewhere else (e.g. higher taxes on top tax bracket, higher taxes on luxury goods etc.).

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50645006]Not taxing corporations doesn't mean not taxing those who own or work for the corporations. Lowering or removing corporate tax simply gives a company more flexibility as to how it uses its money. It can reinvest the money in itself, or it can increase wages for employees to make itself more attractive to potential hires, or if it finds that it has too much cash to use, it will pay it out as dividends to its shareholders, at which point it will get taxed as usual. [B]A lower corporate tax can coexist with lower income tax for the lower brackets, as well as higher income tax for the highest brackets. The two are not mutually exclusive.[/B] [/quote] The two are not mutually exclusive only in an academic, theoretical sense. If you're telling me that a conservative government is going to lower corporate tax, and then increase high bracket income tax while decreasing the tax for lower brackets, you don't know the tories very well. If we were to drastically reduce corporation tax in an effort to make us more palatable after the Brexit, it will not end well. There's no way to do that without making the working class pick up the slack. Which brings me back to my point of this not being an academic exercise. The tory government won't tax the rich more to recoup the loss of a lower corporation tax, they'll just cut public spending more than they already have. [quote] Also, it's not that corporations have the money to avoid paying tax, it's that they have the [i]ability[/i] to, because capital is highly mobile in this day and age. By instituting high corporate taxes, they simply try all sorts of ways and means to avoid them. Instead of playing a cat and mouse game with them and trying to close loopholes as they get found, another idea is to simply lower the tax rate and make up the loss in tax revenue somewhere else (e.g. higher taxes on top tax bracket, higher taxes on luxury goods etc.).[/QUOTE] The distinction you're making between money and ability seems to me like an attempt to distance corporations from rich people, as though rich people don't also do everything they can to avoid paying tax. The ideology of 'fighting them is too hard so let's not bother' would only lead to a society that favours the richest in society even more than it already does.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50645351]The two are not mutually exclusive only in an academic, theoretical sense. If you're telling me that a conservative government is going to lower corporate tax, and then increase high bracket income tax while decreasing the tax for lower brackets, you don't know the tories very well. If we were to drastically reduce corporation tax in an effort to make us more palatable after the Brexit, it will not end well. There's no way to do that without making the working class pick up the slack. Which brings me back to my point of this not being an academic exercise. The tory government won't tax the rich more to recoup the loss of a lower corporation tax, they'll just cut public spending more than they already have. The distinction you're making between money and ability seems to me like an attempt to distance corporations from rich people, as though rich people don't also do everything they can to avoid paying tax. The ideology of 'fighting them is too hard so let's not bother' would only lead to a society that favours the richest in society even more than it already does.[/QUOTE] I like to think in theoretical terms, as in, what is the ideal situation that produces the best results? I realise that practical realities often mean that such pontification seems like pointless daydreaming to many, but I do it anyway as a mental exercise. To me, lower corporate taxes combined with higher taxes on personal income/non-essential consumption makes sense, because it encourages investment into the economic drivers of capitalist economies (businesses) while at the same time ensuring wealth redistribution. It's also very difficult to avoid consumption taxes, unless you don't consume anything at all.