Do you want to discuss boring politics? (37 Viewers)

StrettoBoy said:

Tax turnover and you will be taxing genuine loss-making companies.

As a retired tax lawyer I am well aware of some of the wheezes used to massage profits. HMRC need to get some top brains on board and stamp it out to a greater degree than they presently seem capable of.

Click to expand...

Trouble with those top brains is they do do the work. Then almost immediately get hired by the companies to tell them where they've left the loopholes.

Isn't the whole point of private sector that loss making businesses go under as they have no point existing? Survival of the fittest. So yes, let's tax them. If they're not good enough to make money I'm not feeling sorry for them.

Besides, a decent company should be allowing for tax in their calculations when setting their prices, as ultimately it is just another cost passed onto the consumer. This would allow them to do so much easier. Instead of having to try and guess what this magical profit on a product is they just take the price and add one or two percent on. Easy. Plus I said there would be an allowance, so poorly performing businesses have some leeway. And it stops the huge number of companies that exist solely to make a loss for tax purposes.

Society is full of rules placed on the vast majority of us because of a few that will be dickheads (as football fans we should know that better than most). And that's acceptable because the overall outcome is much better, as annoying as it maybe for the rest of us. Only in this case most will act as much of a dickhead as the rules will allow them to and costs hundreds of billions of pounds either directly or indirectly. So lets not let them act like dickheads and if they don't like it let them fuck off and be replaced by others that won't be dickheads. Let's not forget the UK is still a significant and potentially lucrative place to trade. If they don't want to follow the rules we set then they lose access to that market.

The point is profit doesn't exist. You may as well tax thoughts as they have as much basis in the real world.

As I said, humans aren't taxed that way and they are sentient, living creatures with actual needs to stay alive. So one or the other is wrong. Now if you want to say the way humans are taxed is wrong and they should be taxed after expenses then that's fine, you're entitled to that opinion, although it would lead to a much, much worse society. But you cannot say having one system for us and one for companies is fair. The whole idea of companies is a scam designed by rich people to avoid liability and responsibility and the tax rules are an extension of that.

StrettoBoy said:

10,000 millionaires left the country last year and 16,500 are predicted to do so this year. It's what you would expect and what has happened in the past.

It's why Polly Toynbee has suggested an exit tax to force people to stay, which is a despicable approach. Reeves is apparently thinking of backtracking on her non-domiciled changes because, as with VAT on school fees and CGT, the predictions of behavioural change were wrong.

Click to expand...

How many millionaires depart in an average year? How many of those departing are economically active?

fernandopartridge said:

How many millionaires depart in an average year? How many of those departing are economically active?

Click to expand...

The majority had non dom status and left because of the ending of our almost unique history of having non dom status. So the answer to your question is barely any were economically active, certainly not to the extent that there wealth would have you believe that they could be. There’s also the point that if we’d never had non dom status in the first place they’d probably already have left. Then there’s those that very publicly did it as a political football.

Then there’s the source of the 10k figure. People should do some research on Henley and partners before taking their word as gospel.

People also need to put it in perspective. There’s over 3 million recognised millionaires in the UK. Use of the word exodus has been highly exaggerated to say the least.

skybluetony176 said:

The majority had non dom status and left because of the ending of our almost unique history of having non dom status. So the answer to your question is barely any were economically active, certainly not to the extent that there wealth would have you believe that they could be. There’s also the point that if we’d never had non dom status in the first place they’d probably already have left. Then there’s those that very publicly did it as a political football.

Then there’s the source of the 10k figure. People should do some research on Henley and partners before taking their word as gospel.

People also need to put it in perspective. There’s over 3 million recognised millionaires in the UK. Use of the word exodus has been highly exaggerated to say the least.

Click to expand...

UBS estimates that 3m figure will fall by 500K by 2028.(that's the 3 million stat that most people use). Also the figure is for $ millionaires so that's about 730k GBP - a fairly significant difference.
Henley refers to liquid millionaires rather than paper millionaires (the 3m).

tisza said:

UBS estimates that 3m figure will fall by 500K by 2028.(that's the 3 million stat that most people use). Also the figure is for $ millionaires so that's about 730k GBP - a fairly significant difference.
Henley refers to liquid millionaires rather than paper millionaires (the 3m).

Click to expand...

335,000 people are estimated to have died in ten years because of tax cuts. Ya know, just for some balance.