I wonder if.......

[cee-dee]

I wonder if companies who're gonna be clobbered by this will attempt to recover what they're gonna "lose" by increasing charges to their customers?:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31942639

[al**bear]

Long overdue

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

I wonder if companies who're gonna be clobbered by this will attempt to recover what they're gonna "lose" by increasing charges to their customers?:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31942639

---

Of course they will.

Corporation tax is a complete nonsense anyway - companies don't use services. people do - companies don't have a vote, people do.

The whole tax system is in a mess and new taxes like this only make it messier. 

Reducing the profits of a company via taxation only has one of three effects - an increase in prces, (inflation), and/or a reduction in the payment of dividends and bonuses to shareholders/employees who pay personal tax at a much higher rate than the corporation tax rate and/or a reduction in capital investment resulting in lower production/employment levels.

[al**bear]

 'companies don't use services'

Thats nonsense, they may use different services than individuals, but they do use them. Some of which cost the Tax payer a lot of money to run

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@al**bear wrote:

 'companies don't use services'

Thats nonsense, they may use different services than individuals, but they do use them. Some of which cost the Tax payer a lot of money to run

---

No they don't!

Companies don't use roads - company employees use them and are paid for doing so and in turn pay taxes on those incomes - it is also the consumer who use and benefit from those services and in turn pay their taxes via VAT and on the income they have earned.

Companies don't use educational nor health services, it is the employees that use those services.

It is the same with all other public services.

Companies don't buy nor sell anything, they don't produce nor consume anything either - people do.

Companies don't avoid tax, people do.

[******lynda******]

Make taxation too unattractive to companies, they may leave and then we have job losses. Better to have low taxation for companies..encourages them to come here, creating jobs and thus income tax and vat receipts will rise, and benefits fall.

[******lynda******]

They also are ceasing to make distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is legal. Yet they are trying to go back years to claw in taxes that were legally avoided. The government created these means of avoidance and IMO it is in breach of Human Rights Act....no punishment without law. If something was legal at the time, you cannot be punished retrospectively. Change the law but punishment can only be for what was done after the law changed.

Everyone who has an ISA is avoiding tax.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@******lynda****** wrote:
Make taxation too unattractive to companies, they may leave and then we have job losses. Better to have low taxation for companies..encourages them to come here, creating jobs and thus income tax and vat receipts will rise, and benefits fall.

---

I agree - in addition what we should be 'clamping down' on are those companies that consistently pay such low wages to a large proportion of their staff that the state needs to step in and financially support them with benefits.

The minimum wage should be at a level that recipients don't need benefits. 

A far more 'honest' system would be to directly subsidise those vital industries with government subsidies so that they can afford to pay a higher level of wages - at least in this way the amount a company is being subsidsed by is visible - the current method of allowing low wages and supporting employees with benfits just hides the actual figure.

[cee-dee]

How do you define "vital industries"?

If a business needs subsidising, why? If it's not self-supporting surely it's not viable? If it's some "new, technological" business which is beneficial to the country and it gets a subsidy to "get it going", won't it become dependent on the subsidy and bleat when the subsidy is removed later?

Life and people are irregular, one person can survive very well on seemingly "low wages" and someone else will struggle so what is a "low" minimum wage to one person is quite a nice earner for another.

Going back to taxation, companies setting up here knew full well what the tax situation was and not satisfied with creaming money out of the country, made deliberate moves to evade such tax as was due which has always peeved those who paid their way.

[******lynda******]

The law said tax was due in the country where the head office is. Therefore, having a head office abroad, especially an international company, is not evading tax...it is avoiding tax. ...which is legal.

I wonder how much tax ebay pays in the uk. Plenty of customers here. But no head office, I think.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

How do you define "vital industries"?

If a business needs subsidising, why? If it's not self-supporting surely it's not viable? If it's some "new, technological" business which is beneficial to the country and it gets a subsidy to "get it going", won't it become dependent on the subsidy and bleat when the subsidy is removed later?

Life and people are irregular, one person can survive very well on seemingly "low wages" and someone else will struggle so what is a "low" minimum wage to one person is quite a nice earner for another.

Going back to taxation, companies setting up here knew full well what the tax situation was and not satisfied with creaming money out of the country, made deliberate moves to evade such tax as was due which has always peeved those who paid their way.

---

'Vital' can be defined in any way the government of the day might decide - the point is that if they want to subsidise them then be open and honest about it by providing the cash in a direct and accountable manner rather than allowing companies to pay a wage at such a low level that employees then have to claim benefits to boost their income.

I agree with you in general that if a company is not self-supporting then it is not viable - the only reason companies like Tescos, Lidls, Asda etc. get away with paying employees at a level where many have to claim in-work benefits is because the minimum wage is set so low.  Bring up the minimum wage so that in-work benefits are no longer necessary and we might actually see which companies are viable in their current form.

You are also correct that companiess that set up here knew what the then current tax regime was and what methods were legal to minimise tax at the time - on that basis you can't blame those companies that did take advantage of the available loopholes. 

[cee-dee]

You've not addressed the situation where (for example) one family manages their minimum wage income so well that they don't feel "hard-done-to" but another on exactly the same income and exactly the same situation have too much week left at the end of the money.

There have been many "working-class" people (really, everyone who works is "working-class"?) who seem to enjoy the same sort of life as others but also seem to accumulate substantial savings over their working life.

You don't have to be "mean" to do that but people who live within their means and manage their money properly are "quite comfortable" compared to those who fritter their money away.

Have a walk round on "bin day" and just look at what some people throw away.

An old saying was that you cut your coat to suit your cloth and if more people followed that line they'd be better off.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

You've not addressed the situation where (for example) one family manages their minimum wage income so well that they don't feel "hard-done-to" but another on exactly the same income and exactly the same situation have too much week left at the end of the money.

There have been many "working-class" people (really, everyone who works is "working-class"?) who seem to enjoy the same sort of life as others but also seem to accumulate substantial savings over their working life.

You don't have to be "mean" to do that but people who live within their means and manage their money properly are "quite comfortable" compared to those who fritter their money away.

Have a walk round on "bin day" and just look at what some people throw away.

An old saying was that you cut your coat to suit your cloth and if more people followed that line they'd be better off.

---

It is not a matter of how well or otherwise that someone earning manages their income - benefits and tax credits are not based on that.

[cee-dee]

No, but you were on about the minimum wage not being enough so it seems you're in favour of compulsorily ensuring employers pay more to those who'd then be able to fritter away more money?

[upthecreekyetagain]

Someone working full time on minimum wage - no children, no disability, no special circumstances is entitled to tax credits - this is where the problem lies - in effect companies are receiving a hidden subsidy for every worker they employ on the minimum wage.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

No, but you were on about the minimum wage not being enough so it seems you're in favour of compulsorily ensuring employers pay more to those who'd then be able to fritter away more money?

---

It's not me that has decided the minimum wage is not sufficient for an individuals needs - it is the government that does that by bolstering the income of those on the minimum wage via tax credits and/or benefits.

Campaign for the removal of such government support on the basis that the minimum wage is 'enough' if you like - that is a totally different argument.

What I object to is companies being indirectly subsidised by the current system of tax credits and benefits.  IF the government feel that such subsidies are necessary then increase the minimum wage to a level that they are no longer needed.