Comments on: A taxing question – How much business do you want to keep in the UK?

By: Mandeep

Mandeep — Thu, 29 May 2008 12:40:03 +0000

The argument about democratic ownership of companies benefitting everybody from corporation tax cuts, made by John in his article fails to declare a vital statistic ! What percentage of the businesses in UK are publicly owned and what percentage are privately held? Where the businesses are publicly held how much of their equity is a free float rather than a few !0’s of percentage held by the public and rest held by wealthy family owners or trusts etc.

This should give a truer picture of will the corporation tax cuts benefit the masses at large?

How many of the small shareholders can truly influence the voting in annual board meetings in reality? Aren’t the pensions and fund managers and the brokers and investment bankers who probably vote Tory due to their income percentiles scratching each others backs while voting in remuneration votes at AGM’s and giving each other business/benefits, while laying the cost of operations (gentleman’s clubs anyone) on the joe blog shareholders who has hardly any clue.

By: Rose

Rose — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:14:17 +0000

It can never be explained enough to people, especially in the BBC, that the flatter and simpler the tax regime, the higher will be the take, and the cheaper the cost of collecting it.

By: Bazman

Bazman — Mon, 05 May 2008 20:23:31 +0000

philanthropy? Don’t make me laugh! Most philanthropists have never done a days work in their lives. Warren Buffets fortune would support the American health care system for about a year. Buying a watch and having a haircut will not pay a nurses salary. Conservatives need to get real.

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Mon, 05 May 2008 18:50:40 +0000

I am worried about knocking big business myself. OK the bosses are in it to make money. So is the Stock Exchange. So, ultimately, is everyone. Would you work for nothing?
But making money does not rule out philanthropy. Bill Gates?
Large companies have large offices and large staffs. These people need to be paid and they need to eat and buy clothes and things. Where do they do this? Where do they have that haircut or buy that watch? Call this the trickle down effect, or what you will, it has got to happen.
I agree very much with the Celtic Tiger idea.

But, let’s face it, this government is not going to stop fiddling with things it does not understand. It is not going to reform. It really believes in what it is doing.

And, of course, what it is doing is going broke fast. Hence the need for taxing everything that moves – and more.

By: Acorn

Acorn — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:57:09 +0000

Don’t forget that as a UK domiciled company, you are required to be also an employee income tax collector; national insurance tax collector and an immigration status inspector.

Who was it who said, “… the only purpose of a business is to make profits …”?

By: Bazman

Bazman — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:40:30 +0000

He means the British car industry, which is quite large and successful. No chance of buying an affordable 5 door family car though.
The trickle down effect or the ’sparrows and oats’ theory has been disproved time and again. A lot of cash ends up abroad or in banks from these ‘entrepreneurs’ and Britain ain’t called Treasure Island by large companies for nothing. They are here for booty and plunder for sure. When they have destroyed the country they will then declare it bad for business and move somewhere else. Or at least when the grants have been used up.

By: Tony Makara

Tony Makara — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:34:58 +0000

Stuart Fairney, ideally British owned should mean that the company is owned by British entrepreneurs and shareholders. Of course where no corresponding company exists in our country to supply a given niche area then we should remain open to foreign investment, however ideally we should be trying to build our own economy rather than acting as a surrogate for foreign capital, which is open to flight when economic conditions are not favourable. A British economy built by British capital offers more security, but of course where the will and inclination to invest does not come from the British entrepreneur then we shouldn’t close the door on those who do want to invest here. My argument is that government must make British investment, particularly in relation to supplying the home market, profitable and free of regulation.

By: niconoclast

niconoclast — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:32:21 +0000

The conservatives will propose a corporation tax twice the rate of Southern Ireland’s?Why such a niggardly,tokenistic reduction?

Reply: You tend to get to lower taxes through stepped reductions.

By: Stuart Fairney

Stuart Fairney — Mon, 05 May 2008 13:51:37 +0000

Tony, what is a British owned company?

This isn’t me being ironic, I would like to know what you mean.

By: Tony Makara

Tony Makara — Mon, 05 May 2008 11:41:21 +0000

Government should provide significant tax relief to British owned companies and particularly those that look to supply our domestic market. If government makes it profitable to supply the British market then we will be less reliant on imports and less prone to the higher-interest rates needed to shore up Sterling to prevent high-street inflation from entering the country on the back of imports. This is particularly important as far as food is concerned. We are already starting to see shopping bills increase as the cost of EU food imports increases as the purchasing power of Sterling declines. The more we can produce for ourselves the greater our level of food security will be.

The Labour government do not understand that to punish profit is to punish incentive. An entrepreneur who can make more money is going to want to invest more, creating more jobs, wares and services. More people working means more people contributing to the economy rather than taking from it. People buying more, saving more, thus adding to the wealth of our nation. On the other hand an entrepreneur who can’t make money will not invest, will not have the profit margins that encourage risk, the result being no jobs created and no extra wealth for the economy. The message to entrepreneurs should be, go forth, make money, muliply your wealth, by your wealth others will benefit too.

By: Bazman

Bazman — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:53:10 +0000

Often the companies that leave do not pay a lot of tax here anyway and often will go to extreme lengths to avoid any tax.
If a company in Britain is making money, but not giving any benefit to the country, then why should they be allowed to operate?
It is a real problem across the world on how they should be taxed. Often it seems to me that the Tory party only wants them to have it all their own way and help them in their race to the bottom with the average worker paying for the few with low wages benefits and conditions.
Make no mistake these companies are not out to help anyone they are only in business for the interests of a few and not necessarily the shareholders. Who seem to be whacked quite often.
These tax havens abroad and here are like pirate ships plundering the worlds wealth. War against these countries needs to be declared. Their wealth is funded by often by drug money and theft by third world dictators. Draining wealth from health, social security systems and infrastructure projects across the world.
Did you know that by using a company like lloyds you can set up your own bank in Lichtenstein? For less than five grand, you could set up your own bank, deposit funds into it and start handing out loans and credit cards to customers. Mind-boggling, but true. So if you want to cook up the figures or wipe out your tracks, what better way to do it than open your own bank? And this has been going on for decades. It’s impossible to predict how many people are sitting with billions in their own personal offshore banks.
The German assault on tax dodgers who stash cash in Liechtenstein was a good start. Europe and the rest of the world should follow suit using similar tactics. They are fair and fat targets, easy money for the state and politically acceptable to the voter.
The tax of labour and consumption is not enough as this just attacks people who cannot move or are not rich enough to pay fees.

By: Matthew Reynolds

Matthew Reynolds — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:04:31 +0000

I think that we ought to devolve responsiblity for corporate taxes to the Scottish Parliament , Welsh Assembly & NI Assembly . The aim being to give them the power to become Celtic Tigers a la Eire while bringing in 10% corporate tax flat rate in England . The Parties running Scotland , Wales & Ulster would be forced to go down the right-wing path of downsizing their state sectors to avoid losing out in terms of tax competition with England & Eire . As a result of politics lurching right-ward in the Celtic terrirtories that would make them more favourable to the Conservatives as the Tories could campaign against unemployment in election to those devolved bodies by pledging the corporate tax cuts needed to get more business investment . Those areas are poorer than England as their government sectors are bigger & my plan could be a catalyst to making them smaller . Devolving power like this would shoot down in flames the allegation that the Tories where anti- devolution while forcing our opponents in Ulster , Scotland & Wales to embrace Thatcherism as either they would have to copy England or be replaced in office by a pro- tax cut Conservative Party . In this context why not let Ulster , Scotland & Wales decide their own CGT system while axing CGT in England ( with capital gains taxed as income for the first two years & leaving them free from tax after that ) ? This agenda of decentralisation would force our opponents in parts of the UK unfavourable to use to move to the right or allow the possibility of a Tory recovery . This would also address John Redwood’s concerns about high taxes harming the UK economy.